More like he already fucked us by walking back a lot of Obama era regulations that helped make that happen.
Wait a minute BP oil is a source for this?
Wouldnt the EPA be a better source for this kind of metric?
Apparently it is, Trump is full of hot air and carbon emissions fell last year
I would think the EPA would be more biased towards America lol especially nowadays.
BP on the other hand is a global company. It has interests everywhere.
edit2. there is alot of headroom to fiddle with numbers in these but it is clear why these datasets were used.this does not measure all emissions
edit. did not see good overview from the site.
does this take mitigation onto account atall?
Maybe you can start by reading the chart correctly. It's not saying a 40% reduction.First of all: BP is not a good Source about this topic.
Second of all: BP is Not a good Source about anything.
Germany is here not the Problem: Even while ditching nuclear. It's not like that there magically appeared new coal plants. Renewables are still growing massive.
The picture in the first post is misleading
Did I mention that BP is not a good source for this?
Yep. My bad. Still, without a development over time or any connection to the size of the economy this graph only tells a incomplete story and is just a snapshot of one year.Maybe you can start by reading the chart correctly. It's not saying a 40% reduction.
The countries listed just seem kinda suspect... . Most pro Trump countries have reductions while the anti Trump ones have increases... . It being named BP Oil doesn't help either as anything from Oil companies should be taken with a giant mountain of salt. Sorry if people don't take Oil companies by their word. =x
they should have per capita or absolute emissions there for context but that would not fit the agenda.Percentages based on each nations output seems like it would give a much better idea of who's doing welll and who's doing poorly.
It's partly that and partly that the fracking boom has made coal not worth it over natural gas (which just happens to have less emissions).It doesn't surprise me, despite Trump and his admins fuckery, most individual states and businesses continue to focus on increasing green solutions.
I didn't mean it in an "error" kind of way but rather intentionally. It makes for good PR for Trump, if he sees it he will scream about it.To be honest, I'd expect oil companies to have the most expertise when it concerns their products. They know how much oil and gas they sell anyway, and monitor the market of their competitors too. BP has no endgoal to only discredit 'anti Trump ones', they want to sell their stuff and that includes gauging how their stuff is used. Venezuala isn't exactly the best US ally. I'm not really defending all the actions big oil companies take, but they have many international divisions where they pay skilled people easily over $10K/month to do this stuff, so I doubt the margin of error is really that big.
As others have said, at the end of the day tonnage is the only thing that matters. Nature don't give a fuck about percentage per capita.You people side eyeing BP as the authors are missing the point. The graph is showing tonnage, not rates. Yes this is a good thing, but it's easy to be the number one reducer when you're one of the biggest producers. Think of it like this:
I usually produce 100 bags of garbage and my neighbor usually produces 10 bags
Last year, I produced 98 bags of garbage instead of 100 and my neighbor produced 9 bags instead of 10.
With that data I can make a graph that says that I reduced my garbage production by double what my neighbor did if you go by number of bags.
We should be happy when we reduce our pollution but graphs like the one in the OP mislead us into thinking that the US is leading in the reduction of pollution when, if you go by rates instead of tonnage, we're still one of the biggest polluters.
they should have per capita or absolute emissions there for context but that would not fit the agenda.
As others have said, at the end of the day tonnage is the only thing that matters. Nature don't give a fuck about percentage per capita.
it matters alot. you dont want china or india having similar per capita emissions than west/us.As I said in the OP per capita and percentage reports do make sense but on the other hand global temperatures only care about total numbers, it doesn't really matter if China is doing awesome on a per capita basis if they are emitting more CO2 than USA and Europe combined (that is a true statement by the way), any major global impact would have to mostly involve China, USA and India changing at this point.
I do find it a bit fascinating how quick people nowadays jump to "fake news!" or "can't trust the source" if information comes out that goes against their view of the world. Right wingers see anything governments and non profits put out as propaganda, progressives see any data from corporations as potentially falsified data. I wonder how we go from here to data everyone agrees is true and useful. It will be nearly impossible to actually fix anything if we can't even all agree what the problem is.
I didn't mean it in an "error" kind of way but rather intentionally. It makes for good PR for Trump, if he sees it he will scream about it.
Just seems all pretty suspect from viewing the OP, the name, the countries, etc. . I wouldn't really trust most US companies on this anyway as they are highly interested in oil.
After reading their methodology, what do you think is wrong with it?Trusting an oil company for this kind of data would be naive. There are too many filthy, greedy hands touching it.
I haven't done any thoughts about the content per se. It's just that, on principle, this type of data shouldn't be taken seriously. Companies with vested interests have doctored numbers before, to suit their narrative.After reading their methodology, what do you think is wrong with it?
What is there to be salty about?Salty Europeans trying to discredit the study lmao
Look at their methodology at least before claiming lies.
Huh. I did some research on this topic a year ago and remember reading how China was planning on switching over to clean energy by year whatever. So they never actually bothered to go through with these plans? I guess I was expecting too much from a country that places its country's interest over the interest of anything else in existence.Not really. 72% of the electricity generated in China is by coal power plants. They are turning those plants into more efficient plants, and have shut down plans for building a ton more -- at one point there were projections they were going to be building like 3 new plants EVERY DAY for years -- but while there are "plans" to bring up solar and wind plants online sometime in the future, its just not realistic with current tech. Coal and natural gas plants are around 45-55% efficient, based on asset capacity. Wind and solar is closer to 10-15%, so the gap is immense still. What China is doing is also converting more stuff to natural gas which has far less CO2 emissions than coal. They are very much driven by self interest as well, as the coal plants are absolutely destroying their environment.
The three biggest sources of natural gas on the planet are Russia, Iran, and the USA. Makes the recent geopolitical turmoil interesting as well when you think about those 3 countries.
Yes, but they also have an enormous population and an enormous carbon footprint to pull themselves out of.
Determining carbon goals is strictly a function of gross tonnage.As others have said, at the end of the day tonnage is the only thing that matters. Nature don't give a fuck about percentage per capita.