United States Led Entire World In Reducing CO2 Emissions In 2019

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ever HOW did we manage this, since Trump pulled us out of the Paris accord?  Maybe he used his job creating “magic wand”?

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-led-entire-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions-in-2019

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

*angry Soros noises*

[90DayFinancier 910]

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Ever HOW did we manage this, since Trump pulled us out of the Paris accord?  Maybe he used his job creating “magic wand”?

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-led-entire-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions-in-2019

 

Because, when you generated 45% of the emmisions and you cut emmisions by moving from coal to natural gas (which has 50% of the carbon footprint) for auxillary power generation, shrinking 2% is easy peasy and has more to do with the economic advantage of Natural gas than any altruistic drive to save the economy.

Also the economic reality that solar/wind generation capacity is cheaper to build than new nuke or carbon based power generation makes investing in alternative a no brainer. 

 

In the end, it's all about the Benjamin's

 

[Lil bear 3,831]

5 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Because, when you generated 45% of the emmisions and you cut emmisions by moving from coal to natural gas (which has 50% of the carbon footprint) for auxillary power generation, shrinking 2% is easy peasy and has more to do with the economic advantage of Natural gas than any altruistic drive to save the economy.

Also the economic reality that solar/wind generation capacity is cheaper to build than new nuke or carbon based power generation makes investing in alternative a no brainer. 

 

In the end, it's all about the Benjamin's

 

Yep. Not exactly a big win considering the starting point 

[90DayFinancier 910]

10 minutes ago, Lil bear said:

Yep. Not exactly a big win considering the starting point 

I don't think it's all a bad news story by any means.  The reality is the economic advantages of renewables is only getting better daily. The us even has a new energy secretary ( buh, bye Gov Rick) that gets it and is ditching the climate denial madness.

 

Still you have a leader in the white house that is living with a 2nd graders understanding of science. With talk a 4flushes and wind power causing brain cancer. Geez.

 

The irony is Bush Sr. Was all over the carbon challenge and Sununu screwed it up.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 23,242]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Because, when you generated 45% of the emmisions and you cut emmisions by moving from coal to natural gas (which has 50% of the carbon footprint) for auxillary power generation, shrinking 2% is easy peasy and has more to do with the economic advantage of Natural gas than any altruistic drive to save the economy.

Also the economic reality that solar/wind generation capacity is cheaper to build than new nuke or carbon based power generation makes investing in alternative a no brainer. 

 

In the end, it's all about the Benjamin's

 

Just curious, where does the 45% number come from?  Based on 2017 numbers, it appears closer to 14%.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[Lil bear 3,831]

8 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I don't think it's all a bad news story by any means.  The reality is the economic advantages of renewables is only getting better daily. The us even has a new energy secretary ( buh, bye Gov Rick) that gets it and is ditching the climate denial madness.

 

Still you have a leader in the white house that is living with a 2nd graders understanding of science. With talk a 4flushes and wind power causing brain cancer. Geez.

 

The irony is Bush Sr. Was all over the carbon challenge and Sununu screwed it up.

 

Not bad news no .. but not the “look at us.. we’re world leaders in reducing carbon emissions !! “ hoopla ... 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just curious, where does the 45% number come from?  Based on 2017 numbers, it appears closer to 14%.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

One sided stats are always misleading. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Because, when you generated 45% of the emmisions and you cut emmisions by moving from coal to natural gas (which has 50% of the carbon footprint) for auxillary power generation, shrinking 2% is easy peasy and has more to do with the economic advantage of Natural gas than any altruistic drive to save the economy.

Also the economic reality that solar/wind generation capacity is cheaper to build than new nuke or carbon based power generation makes investing in alternative a no brainer. 

 

In the end, it's all about the Benjamin's

 

If the US is 45%, then China is 150%.  We can make up all sorts of numbers.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

9 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Because, when you generated 45% of the emmisions and you cut emmisions by moving from coal to natural gas (which has 50% of the carbon footprint) for auxillary power generation, shrinking 2% is easy peasy and has more to do with the economic advantage of Natural gas than any altruistic drive to save the economy.

Also the economic reality that solar/wind generation capacity is cheaper to build than new nuke or carbon based power generation makes investing in alternative a no brainer. 

 

In the end, it's all about the Benjamin's

 

 

48 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

If the US is 45%, then China is 150%.  We can make up all sorts of numbers.

Everything I have seen says that we are around 14% as well while China is around 27/28%.

 

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed

https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/

Edited February 19, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Dashinka 23,242]

4 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

 

Everything I have seen says that we are around 14% as well while China is around 27/28%.

 

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed

The EU is almost 10%.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

The EU is almost 10%.

Not exactly a win.

 

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

China is around 27/28%.

Huge win!

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

 

Everything I have seen says that we are around 14% as well while China is around 27/28%.

 

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed

https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/

Yes my data is based on total energy consumption from 10 years ago when China was not the  powerhouse it is today.

 

The fact remains: the US consumes a lot of energy and if you consume a lot N, and you strive to become more efficient x%, then N-x%= a lot of energy efficiency.

 

Just LED lighting alone has been a great savings. My issue is all we hear from the POTUS is about LED bulbs making him look bad, or mischarectizing the nature of renewable energy.  No matter, people are moving to renewables inspire of his leadership in the opposite direction.

 

The man propogates more bad science than any adult I have ever heard.  

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Yes my data is based on total energy consumption from 10 years ago when China was not the  powerhouse it is today.

 

 

So you used decade-old data to try and malign a current study?  Interesting tactic.  Then have the balls to talk about "bad science".

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

51 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

So you used decade-old data to try and malign a current study?  Interesting tactic.  Then have the balls to talk about "bad science".

Old data. You know who would write a 14 page dissertation