More like he already fucked us by walking back a lot of Obama era regulations that helped make that happen.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
BP Oil: US had highest reduction in carbon emissions in 2017
- Thread starter thediamondage
- Start date
More like he already fucked us by walking back a lot of Obama era regulations that helped make that happen.
I would trust BP because they have a vested interest in understanding the energy layout of the future for the sake of their company.
Many energy companies do projections and studies, because it's kinda their job.
Many energy companies do projections and studies, because it's kinda their job.
this does not measure all emissions
edit. did not see good overview from the site.
does this take mitigation onto account atall?
edit. did not see good overview from the site.
does this take mitigation onto account atall?
Last edited:
Apparently it is, Trump is full of hot air and carbon emissions fell last year
Checkmate, Reptilians
Okay so my next question, knowing the alignment of BP oil and given the propensity for false info spewed by this administration, could this info be false to mask the true narrative given what the EPA is today? What if its the complete opposite and this report is only to appease?
Last edited:
edit2. there is alot of headroom to fiddle with numbers in these but it is clear why these datasets were used.
edit. was supposed to edit. lol.
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?
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?
Last edited:
Maybe you can start by reading the chart correctly. It's not saying a 40% reduction.
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.
But it's good that the USA is going down in emissions. If those number are correct. I want to see the primary source.
us china and india are biggest evils. especially us with per capita emissions. clearly not something this thread intended to focus on.
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.
The US decreasing its emissions has long been predicted despute the Trump rollbacks. Market forces are the number one factor as most of Obama's climate efforts were never implemented or held up by courts.
Oil companies really should be interested in diversifying their energy offerings, so I'm willing to take this study with confidence.
they should have per capita or absolute emissions there for context but that would not fit the agenda.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
OP
OP
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'm not talking about nature, I'm talking about perception and how misleading it can be to look at graphs like that without taking into account what's being measured. At the end of the day, nature doesn't care about graphs either. But the people who you are trying to reach with regards to reducing pollution do.
it matters alot. you dont want china or india having similar per capita emissions than west/us.
we need good goals for developing nations to develop to. west not following same goals would be really hypocritical.
we can also make dick measuring contest about how much more you cause emissions compared to me cause that how you are going about it.
I feel that's kind of a conspiracy level theory that serves no actual purpose. Yes, Trump will probably try to spin everything in a positive way for him, although he doubt he'll do that now since that'd acknowledge that carbon emissions do impact the environment. But in this case? Oil/energy companies also sell analysis to third parties, and those are different divisions from their drilling/supply operations. All big oil companies also acknowledge global warming and the energy crisis, the problem is that they still have a major interest in providing the energy demands of the global world. After all, people still buy and use oil products, otherwise they wouldn't be so big as they are know. Also you know BP is British, right? It was called British Petroleum for a reason.
Trusting an oil company for this kind of data would be naive. There are too many filthy, greedy hands touching it.
After reading their methodology, what do you think is wrong with 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.
What are you doing US?! There's now a deficit of a staggering 4.145 million tonnes of carbon dioxide towards China! Unfair! Trump should impose sanctions on CO2 trade emissions right away. America first!
Salty Europeans trying to discredit the study lmao
Look at their methodology at least before claiming lies.
Look at their methodology at least before claiming lies.
Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean the data provided is false. When it comes to any study, we should be skeptical of questionable sources, but we don't get to necessarily discount the information they provide without adequate reason.
For that matter, good sources can publish shit. See: the Lancet and Wakefield.
For that matter, good sources can publish shit. See: the Lancet and Wakefield.
It wasn't forced by the heavy hand of government, but incentives put in place during the Obama administration absolutely contributed to this.
Extraodinary that even with all the rapid developments in green technology, CO2 emission continue to rise. Since it appears that the rise is being driven by the huge increase in cars in the likes of China and India, it will only be when electric cars are mainstream that these increases will stop.
The PDF shows some better data for that chart. I think what they are trying to is to compare about the same amount of emissions from a single country's, US (5087) to continental EU's (4152). Finland is down by 3.8% for example, so better than the US by a long shot even though contributing very little overall.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/e...review/bp-stats-review-2018-co2-emissions.pdf
China's output is fucking massive. It's over 9000!
Edit: and why does it say "ten countries" when EU is not a country?
This title on the website is also pretty eerily happy sounding that in general the emissions in the world were up. Rebounding from stagnant....
"Global CO2 emissions from energy in 2017 grew by 1.6%, rebounding from the stagnant volumes during 2014-2016, and faster than the 10-year average of 1.3%"
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/e...review/bp-stats-review-2018-co2-emissions.pdf
China's output is fucking massive. It's over 9000!
Edit: and why does it say "ten countries" when EU is not a country?
This title on the website is also pretty eerily happy sounding that in general the emissions in the world were up. Rebounding from stagnant....
"Global CO2 emissions from energy in 2017 grew by 1.6%, rebounding from the stagnant volumes during 2014-2016, and faster than the 10-year average of 1.3%"
Last edited:
for a site that is so pro-science it is surprising that people rely on BPs 'translations' of the datasets...
one year reductions are fairly meaningless without following historical trends as winter temperatures/heating can have massive effects if you only look at one year - eg someone mentioned Finland's emission cut of 3.8% which is almost all due to warmer winter temps in 2017.
and the datasets are not BPs, you can find more rich data here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8
one year reductions are fairly meaningless without following historical trends as winter temperatures/heating can have massive effects if you only look at one year - eg someone mentioned Finland's emission cut of 3.8% which is almost all due to warmer winter temps in 2017.
and the datasets are not BPs, you can find more rich data here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8
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.
Yes, but they also have an enormous population and an enormous carbon footprint to pull themselves out of.
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate researcher focusing on science communication had a pretty good thread about this. Essentially, we decreased the most by gross ammount, but not percentage wise. When you're the second largest polluter, it's not hard to make large decreases:
More in the thread.
More in the thread.
Determining carbon goals is strictly a function of gross tonnage.
From a ethical and implementation point of view, per capita is what matters when comparing nations.