Psssshh...who needs Paris Accord. United States leads all major ‘hypocritical’ nations in CO2 reduction and energy efficiency.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/2...icies.html

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepub...CO2017.pdf

the numbers in this article are not scaled for population or GDP, so it's not really easy to see if we are doing our "fair share" so to speak compared to smaller countries like Germany or Japan.
that said, the atmosphere doesn't really care what the United States' fair share is. The atmosphere reacts to the gross tonnage numbers given in this article.
here's hoping that our investments in Energy Efficiency, electric cars and trucks, and renewable energy only grow from here.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Psssshh...who needs Paris Accord. United States leads all major ‘hypocritical’ nations in CO2 reduction and energy efficiency.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/2...icies.html

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepub...CO2017.pdf

the numbers in this article are not scaled for population or GDP, so it's not really easy to see if we are doing our "fair share" so to speak compared to smaller countries like Germany or Japan.
that said, the atmosphere doesn't really care what the United States' fair share is. The atmosphere reacts to the gross tonnage numbers given in this article.
here's hoping that our investments in Energy Efficiency, electric cars and trucks, and renewable energy only grow from here.

I included the IEA report as well. It dives into some of the numbers you doubt. You know, because there are folks quick to discredit anything posted off Fox News.

---

the numbers in this article are not scaled for population or GDP, so it's not really easy to see if we are doing our "fair share" so to speak compared to smaller countries like Germany or Japan.
that said, the atmosphere doesn't really care what the United States' fair share is. The atmosphere reacts to the gross tonnage numbers given in this article.
here's hoping that our investments in Energy Efficiency, electric cars and trucks, and renewable energy only grow from here.

I included the IEA report as well. It dives into some of the numbers you doubt. You know, because there are folks quick to discredit anything posted off Fox News.

Or anything that makes America or Trump look good in general.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

the numbers in this article are not scaled for population or GDP, so it's not really easy to see if we are doing our "fair share" so to speak compared to smaller countries like Germany or Japan.
that said, the atmosphere doesn't really care what the United States' fair share is. The atmosphere reacts to the gross tonnage numbers given in this article.
here's hoping that our investments in Energy Efficiency, electric cars and trucks, and renewable energy only grow from here.

I included the IEA report as well. It dives into some of the numbers you doubt. You know, because there are folks quick to discredit anything posted off Fox News.

I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I included the IEA report as well. It dives into some of the numbers you doubt. You know, because there are folks quick to discredit anything posted off Fox News.

I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

Article? That was an International Energy Agency report! That report also included scaled numbers of which you appear to dismiss. You ask for context and then brush it off. Work in progress but tremendous on a global scale comparison.

U.S. at .5% = 25 Million tonne reduction
UK 3.8% & Mex at 4%= 15 Million tonnes

Most enlighting part of report: “In addition, in the United States, the 2018 Budget Bill and the extension and expansion of the “45Q” tax credits is expected to provide a significant boost for CCUS investment. This could lead to capital investment on the order of USD 1 billion over the next six years, potentially adding 10 to 30 million tonnes or more of additional CO2 capture capacity. This would increase total global carbon capture capacity by around two-thirds from today’s levels.” Who would of thought less red tape would actually help the energy sector with efficiency, lower emissions, and greater implementation of renewables.

---

I included the IEA report as well. It dives into some of the numbers you doubt. You know, because there are folks quick to discredit anything posted off Fox News.

I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

We're not emitting carbon, we're emitting carbon dioxide. Calling it "carbon" is an intentional misrepresentation because carbon is perceived as being dirty. Calling CO2 "carbon" like calling a sip of water "drinking hydrogen."

The UK and Mexico are outliers. Most European countries haven't come close to a 0.5% reduction.

And "doing much better" would be increasing our CO2 emissions to further feed the vegetable kingdom. When the next glaciation comes the land plants are going to need all of the CO2 that survives being dissolved into a colder ocean. Many plant species went extinct in an earlier glaciation, and the planet came close to wiping out all vegetation. Thankfully China and India are stepping up their CO2 emissions.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

We're not emitting carbon, we're emitting carbon dioxide. Calling it "carbon" is an intentional misrepresentation because carbon is perceived as being dirty. Calling CO2 "carbon" like calling a sip of water "drinking hydrogen."

The UK and Mexico are outliers. Most European countries haven't come close to a 0.5% reduction.

And "doing much better" would be increasing our CO2 emissions to further feed the vegetable kingdom. When the next glaciation comes the land plants are going to need all of the CO2 that survives being dissolved into a colder ocean. Many plant species went extinct in an earlier glaciation, and the planet came close to wiping out all vegetation. Thankfully China and India are stepping up their CO2 emissions.

That's nuts.
I mean sure Canada and Siberia might become more pleasant places to live, but much larger land areas like Brazil, North Africa, India and the Persian Gulf could become so hot in the summer that it's either air conditioning or death. Farming could become nearly impossible in these areas unless there is a new wave of automation in farming. And that says nothing of the fact that half of Bangladesh and a lot of coastal Florida would be underwater.
There might not be much we can do about these eventualities at this point but we owe it to ourselves to try. Saying that this will all end up being a good thing is willful ignorance.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

Article? That was an International Energy Agency report! That report also included scaled numbers of which you appear to dismiss. You ask for context and then brush it off. Work in progress but tremendous on a global scale comparison.

U.S. at .5% = 25 Million tonne reduction
UK 3.8% & Mex at 4%= 15 Million tonnes

Most enlighting part of report: “In addition, in the United States, the 2018 Budget Bill and the extension and expansion of the “45Q” tax credits is expected to provide a significant boost for CCUS investment. This could lead to capital investment on the order of USD 1 billion over the next six years, potentially adding 10 to 30 million tonnes or more of additional CO2 capture capacity. This would increase total global carbon capture capacity by around two-thirds from today’s levels.” Who would of thought less red tape would actually help the energy sector with efficiency, lower emissions, and greater implementation of renewables.

Who? Pretty much every person who favors small government and free markets.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We're not emitting carbon, we're emitting carbon dioxide. Calling it "carbon" is an intentional misrepresentation because carbon is perceived as being dirty. Calling CO2 "carbon" like calling a sip of water "drinking hydrogen."

The UK and Mexico are outliers. Most European countries haven't come close to a 0.5% reduction.

And "doing much better" would be increasing our CO2 emissions to further feed the vegetable kingdom. When the next glaciation comes the land plants are going to need all of the CO2 that survives being dissolved into a colder ocean. Many plant species went extinct in an earlier glaciation, and the planet came close to wiping out all vegetation. Thankfully China and India are stepping up their CO2 emissions.

That's nuts.
I mean sure Canada and Siberia might become more pleasant places to live, but much larger land areas like Brazil, North Africa, India and the Persian Gulf could become so hot in the summer that it's either air conditioning or death. Farming could become nearly impossible in these areas unless there is a new wave of automation in farming. And that says nothing of the fact that half of Bangladesh and a lot of coastal Florida would be underwater.
There might not be much we can do about these eventualities at this point but we owe it to ourselves to try. Saying that this will all end up being a good thing is willful ignorance.

You are a sucker for the alarmist press. The actual scientists (except the few that are willing to lie for money or career advancement) are not in that camp. You might want to investigate what the research actually shows rather than what The Guardian spews out.

The rate of sea level rise has been constant since long before humanity started enriching the atmosphere with CO2, so no, Florida will not be underwater. It would take millennia to melt all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica. but don't believe me, go look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov. The rate of sea level rise has been constant since records were kept. Here's Key West:



The warming is concentrated toward the poles. The tropics regulate temperature through thunderstorm activity, so the high temperatures in the warmer areas will not increase (the lows may increase). So yes, Siberia and Canada will become more livable. Warmer is Better! But India and Brazil will not become too hot to survive without AC (the Sahara is already too hot), even if the warming trend continues.

Let me rephrase that: Rural India and Brazil will not become that hot, but the cities might. That would be from the high urban warming adding to the regional temperature, not from CO2 warming.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"