Emissions primer

These numbers are easily found, and generally included in articles regarding greenhouse emission rates.

Quote:

---

2015 total emissions by country

2015 per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons)

1 China 6.59
2 United States 15.53
3 India 1.58
4 Russia 10.19

---

Quote:

---

Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country
share of global CO2 emissions
1 China 23.43 %
2 U.S. 14.69 %
3 India 5.70 %
4 Russian Federation 4.87 %

---

Quote:

---

What country produces the most pollution?
Top 5 most polluting countries

China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ...
United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ...
India (7%) ...
Russia (5%) ...
Japan (4%)

---

Quote:

---

Which countries have reduced emissions?

The reduction in the US of nearly 800 million tons of CO2 emissions since 2007 is almost five times greater than the second ranked country (UK) is just slightly less than the reductions of the next ten countries combined (UK, Italy, Ukraine, Spain, Japan, Russian Federation, France, Germany, Canada, and Greece).Nov 8, 2017

---

From: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...the-world.html

Quote:

---

Approximately two-thirds of all industrial methane and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere since 1854 can be traced to burning fossil fuels and producing cement. Over the decades, scientists have succeeded in confidently tracing how much of climate change can be directly tied to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Sadly, the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are now higher than at any point in human history, further worsening the ‘greenhouse effect’ contributing to global warming and the consequences of climate change. In fact, recent data shows that global carbon dioxide emissions were 150 times higher in 2011 than they were in 1850.

Since burning fossil fuels is usually a sign of heavy industry, carbon dioxide emissions can also serve as method of measuring a country’s economic growth. Nonetheless, a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is an important objective of not only environmentalists but of every humanitarian-oriented and environmentally conscious state in the world. At the moment, 192 countries have adopted the Kyoto protocol which, among many other objectives, aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from the 1990 levels by 2012.

In the world today, established economies have large, but waning, carbon emissions, while new economic giants in the developing world are increasing their emissions rapidly.
China

China emits almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the US, which it surpassed in 2006 as the world’s top contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Today, the country accounts for approximately 23 percent of all global CO2 emissions. The United States government estimates project that, barring major reform, China will double its emissions by 2040, due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels for steel production and electricity. Until recently, China was hesitant to establish targets for emissions, which continue to increase, although at a slower rate.
United States

The US has never entered into any binding treaty to curb greenhouse gases, but has cut more carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation nevertheless. The country is on pace to meet a 2009 pledge by the Obama administration to reduce CO2 emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

Unfortunately, CO2 emissions have gone up in recent as the country fights to recover back from the recession that began in 2008. President Obama’s administration has not always gained Congressional support, as means to balance making progress economically and reducing emissions do not always go hand in hand, and different political factions propose markedly different strategies concerning how to best do so. Most “clean air” legislation in this country has focused on improving automobile fuel economy and cutting carbon pollution from existing and new power plants.
India

In coming years, India plans to double its coal production to feed a national power grid that suffers from increasingly frequent blackouts. The nation faces the difficult challenge of curbing its greenhouse gases even as its population and economy continues to grow. In 2010, the country voluntarily committed to a 20-25 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels (relative to economic output) by 2020.

In summary, when it comes to pure carbon dioxide emissions today,
China emits more carbon dioxide than 2nd Place US and 3rd Place India combined.
The US has reduced its CO2 release for two years in a row despite bipartisan political conflicts.
India has become the world’s third biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, pushing Russia down to the fourth position on our list.
Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country

View information as a: List Chart

Rank Country share of global CO2 emissions
1 China 23.43 %
2 U.S. 14.69 %
3 India 5.70 %
4 Russian Federation 4.87 %
5 Brazil 4.17 %
6 Japan 3.61 %
7 Indonesia 2.31 %
8 Germany 2.23 %
9 Korea 1.75 %
10 Canada 1.57 %
11 Iran 1.57 %

---

Dave, at first glance, the stats you posted don't seem to agree with each other. For example, from the first quote box we have:

2015 per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons)

1 China 6.59
2 United States 15.53

Then, from the second quote box we see:

Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country
share of global CO2 emissions
1 China 23.43 %
2 U.S. 14.69 %

I'm not sure what may be correct, or if I am misinterpreting, but it appears the U.S. is leading in reductions, so that it good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Dave, at first glance, the stats you posted don't seem to agree with each other. For example, from the first quote box we have:

2015 per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons)

1 China 6.59
2 United States 15.53

Then, from the second quote box we see:

Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country
share of global CO2 emissions
1 China 23.43 %
2 U.S. 14.69 %

I'm not sure what may be correct, or if I am misinterpreting, but it appears the U.S. is leading in reductions, so that it good!

---

The US is leading in reductions---and that is a great thing.

You have to tie in the details when evaluating those numbers----China has a population of 1.4 BILLION, the USA, 326 MILLION.

For total emissions multiply the per capita number by the population to get the total for the county.

I did not know it was a per capita thing. Going back and reading again I see it now. That makes more sense.

A word on US reductions; while we are leading in the area of reductions we began at a much worse place as seen by the per capita numbers. Because of our life style we have a much bigger bucket to empty. It is a combination of many things from our "disposable life style" to the things we eat. Consider the carbon footprint of lettuce in Maine in January----trucked from CA. That happens in our quantities nowhere else. PA's biggest export is water---drinking water---in disposable single use plastic bottles---hauled all over the US!

We have done well picking low hanging fruit, primarily in the auto industry but it is only a touch of what needs to happen and can be painlessly achieved.

It's really not that much effort to effectively cut our admissions. My wife and I both downsized our vehicles. So, now my truck gets 31 MPG vs. the old truck's 17 MPG. Now, that I'm used to it, I just can't see going back to my wasteful habits. I'm personally convinced we can do better, without that much effort.

Hunter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UTAH

It's really not that much effort to effectively cut our admissions. My wife and I both downsized our vehicles. So, now my truck gets 31 MPG vs. the old truck's 17 MPG. Now, that I'm used to it, I just can't see going back to my wasteful habits. I'm personally convinced we can do better, without that much effort.

Hunter

---

Thumbup :hatoff:

Quote:

---

Consider the carbon footprint of lettuce in Maine in January----trucked from CA. That happens in our quantities nowhere else. PA's biggest export is water---drinking water---in disposable single use plastic bottles---hauled all over the US!

We have done well picking low hanging fruit, primarily in the auto industry but it is only a touch of what needs to happen and can be painlessly achieved.

---

I can see where there could be some changes made, but are you saying that people in Maine or any other place across the Country do not need to eat salads or have condiments on their burgers all winter? We in America get all sorts of fruits and vegetables from all over the world year round, it is a huge business for somebody that grows and sells their products. It is also a business to the company hauling those products and to the grocer that sells those products as well as a delight for the end user. What is the alternative to putting all of these people out of a job and telling consumers that they will no longer have lettuce in winter? To add to that, who is to say that it can't be trucked any other time of the year either. So if it is not grown local, you just do not get to eat it or use it?


As far as the bottled water is concerned I hear that. Bottled water costs more than soda in places. Back in my roughnecking days we had a 5 gallon water can, we stopped and filled it up at the store where we filled the crew car up with gas from the hose at the gas pumps used to fill radiators. We all used a paper cup to drink that water during work and nobody got sick. Now a bunch of safety nazis came out and outlawed the "community" water can and we are forced to use disposable plastic bottles or not work on their jobsites.


There are a bunch of good intentions, yet the results are disastrous for many on both sides of the coin.

I agree with everything you said Tex. I recycle everything, I have 20? Gatorade bottles that are filled with water and refilled after use, I even have my own shopping bags, I hate plastic and I try and buy accordingly. The problem, there is no answer unless your well off for most of us, on top of that they want to take our taxes and fix everyone else's problem. I started this last night and somehow lost it, no idea where to start to find the links I had. Bottom line is if we join their little club, The Kyoto Protocol and started fixing everyone else's problem with pollution and fixing them back up after every storm we're the ones that get screwed. Yes, there are 192 countries that are supposed to all pay their share, does anybody here think that will ever happen? It will be just like Nato where we pay the lion's share, one link says 73%!
If we as a country can feed ourselves and take care of our poor and house our poor and quit just throwing money hand over fist...pay off or create a plan to pay off our national debt, start somewhere on fixing our infrastructure then heck yeah let's start giving hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries to do with what they will. Until then let's continue to do what we can when we can, not throw the baby out with the bath water. If we could straighten out our mess think what we could do everywhere else.

Here's another perspective, get rid of borders completely. They don't look at real world scenarios only the good that could happen.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/t...ely-1067820283

James, I expressed no opinion of right or wrong about my lettuce statement---it was simply a statement of fact to demonstrate a difference between the US and much of the rest of the world, a fact which contributes to our higher/capita carbon emission rate. In the interest of full disclosure---we have lettuce in our refrigerator.

As for the Paris Accord---I agree with the position taken by Trump. I have no expectation that those monies would ever find their way to the intended purpose. The entire proposal smacks of trying to pay for some misplaced guilt of success. That said, we are not relieved of taking appropriate measures to reduce our uber contribution.

And I was not attacking you or your idea, just adding a counterpoint. My new company truck will be a gasoline model, still 3/4 ton 4X4 but not using a diesel engine. Is that good or bad, let's weigh the pros and cons of that. I'm getting about 17 mpg right now loaded, the gas is going to be much less than that, probably 12-13mpg. I need that size truck and 4 wheel drive to get the tools I use to isolated locations that would not allow a 2 wheel drive to go. We could now use CNG or propane, but not as many places to get either in many places.


Now we have shown several scenarios that could be used to add to or completely make up a new environmental law. Is it good or bad, who is right or wrong? I will go out on a limb and say there is no right answer for every scenario and no law will cover all scenarios equally. That is why politicians need to stay out of it, sure we need to control pollution, but some things make the problem worse, as shown by the MTBE debacle that Congress stupidly enacted.


CO2 is what every living thing exhales after breathing in oxygen. It is also what plants breathe in and they "exhale" oxygen. I think the safe level of oxygen is between 19.5 and 22 % anything less or more can be lethal. It is a very delicate balance we tread. Man made levels of either are minute to say the least. The fires in Cali and other laces have more affect than what we are doing by simply breathing. What does fire release as it burns oxygen? It also releases heat, which is what the globalists started out saying, we were warming to the point of extinction. Back in the 70's we were warned that by now the earth would be a frozen wasteland. Scientists have had their kooky ideas from the day they got to compare numbers. I am not buying onto their "panic mode" and raising taxes to give to others is not solving the problem in the least. Until they are called out for their lunatic rants, we will never get the truth out of them.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to your entire rambling James but in this particular case:

Quote:

---

Back in the 70's we were warned that by now the earth would be a frozen wasteland.

---

You might want to stop relying on right wing talking points that are at best attempts to spin something that isn't.

There is a huge bank of information available to debunk that but for starters you might want to try this.

Of course mine is just a rant because it goes against the grain, typical. There is no difference in either case. A few egomaniacs were trying to attribute an event tied to another event in BOTH cases. In the global warming case they are basing their theories off of models of what COULD happen, in the event of an extreme problem. Models and theories have one thing in common, it is not exact. I am sure we all want to do what we can to keep our environment clean, letting a bunch of kooks try to tell us their way is the best, is not it.


CO2 is not particularly dangerous, unless it gets out of balance, as in too much CO2 and not enough oxygen. Too much CO2 and plants grow like crazy, look at the environment that dinosaurs lived in. I'll speculate a bunch of it was due to all of the volcanic activity and we has an abundance of oxygen because of all of the plant life. The earth will survive just abut anything.

The earth will survive just abut anything.

------------------------------------
That doesn't really matter if we can't survive what the earth gives us. Like in the dust bowl in the 40's? Our farming practices basically destroyed the land to where nothing could grow.
Polluting rivers until they catch on fire doesn't work either. Pumping sewage into the ocean creates large zones of Nitrite so large that fish can't live in it, the Chesapeake Bay is having that problem. If we kill everything around us we will also die.
I know you're not condoning any of that but what we're doing is a good thing. I'll go so far as to say that some of the BS they come up with is insane but the idea of it does get us going in the right direction.