Emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States peaked in 2007 at 6.14 billion tons. Since then it declined, initially due to the 2008 recession but later to use of more efficient fuels (mainly natural gas instead of coal). By 2019, it had declined by 0.76 billion tons, or 12 percent, while in 2021 it had fallen another 0.37 billion tons, or 18 percent less than 2007. Some of the decline in 2021 was due to COVID, but some was due to continuing efficiencies.
Source: Our World in Data.
Over the same time period, 2007 to 2021, emissions in China grew by 4.49 billion tons, or almost four times the decline in the United States. As of 2021, China was producing almost two-and-a-half times as much carbon emissions as the United States. Much of the increase in China was due to burning of coal that we and other countries that are busy reducing their carbon footprints are exporting to China.
China is promising to be “carbon neutral” by 2060, but that’s an easy promise to make because it’s nearly 40 years away. Before then, it expects its emissions will continue to grow at least through 2030.
Meanwhile, in the first world, Zoomers and others are stressing out over the carbon emissions from each of the 2.6 cups of coffee the average American drinks each day. A recent article found that the most carbon-efficient method of making coffee was using single-serve pods. (Actually, instant coffee was slightly more efficient, but only if users didn’t heat up more water than they actually needed for the coffee.) The pods were most efficient because they used both less coffee and less hot water than other methods.
This lead to a heated response from NPR arguing that pods were terrible for the environment because the required plastic production (whose CO2 emissions were accounted for in the other study) and disposal (ditto). But the biggest argument was the other study wasn’t peer reviewed, so it doesn’t count — even though there are numerous problems with peer review including the fact that 80 percent of the results of peer-reviewed articles can’t be replicated.
Will coffee pods will bring about the end of the world? Photo by Yortw.
Before someone attacks me as being a tool of Big Coffee, I want to say in my own defense that I neither drink coffee nor advocate that others drink it. I do have an occasional cup of hot chocolate, but not from pods, if there are such things.
I do wonder, however, whether people who are stressing out over every last gram of CO2 they produce have their priorities straight. It’s as if they think that if they emit one more gram a day, the earth is going to turn into a glowing ember in three years.
People who really think that should learn a lesson from the late economist, Charles Lave, who understood what he called the Law of Large Proportions, namely that “The biggest components matter most.” In other words, forget about your coffee pods. If you think CO2 emissions are a serious problem, get your government to stop exports of coal to China. After all, a promise to reduce emissions after 2030 doesn’t mean much if you think the world will be overheated long before then.
If you don’t think the world is going to end in the next few years but still think carbon emissions are a problem, then you need to figure out what are the biggest components of carbon emissions in your life. If you ride mass transit, you can save emissions by getting a car and discouraging subsidies to transit. If own a car, you can save emissions by replacing it with a smaller car. If you live in high-rise or mid-rise housing, you can move to a two-story stick home, which produced less emissions to build and fewer to heat.
If you don’t think that carbon emissions are the world’s number one problems, then join me in rolling your eyes about the people who get stressed out by coffee pods.
There is NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (Or show your unwillingness to learn by posting a laughter emoji.)
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief is not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
—— MORE INFORMATION ON CLIMATE ——
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/historic_news.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/failedpredictions.html
Even the IPCC debunks climate alarmism:
–>The Earth only warmed 0.78degree C since 1850 (to 2012). (0.48 C/century)
–>We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
–>We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
–>Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently.
–>There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.
–>Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness
–>Prediction of future climate is not possible.
–>Evidence is here: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/ipcc_says.html
—————————
Thousands of peer reviewed papers debunk the “Crisis”
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
31,487 scientists, including Edward Teller, signed a petition against man made global warming: http://petitionproject.org/
CO2 follows temperature:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/VostokGraph.html
(Be sure to follow the links to the peer reviewed sources on DebunkingClimate.com)
http://www.debunkingclimate.com
https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/2021-05-26_hgss-2021-1_latest-version-of-the-manuscript.pdf
Climate Was Extreme Even Before Man Emitted Much CO2
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/historic_news.html
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%).
CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%)
1) Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
2) Climate issues in one- or two-page summaries: https://climateataglance.com/
Book version: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/CaaGbook30vWeb2021.pdf
How environmentalism works: Create a fake problem. Scare people with it. If they send money, keep it up. If they don’t send enough money, create another fake problem.
Expose of the Multi Billion dollar Environmental industry:
ENVIRONMENT INC – Special Series in the Sacramento Bee: journeytoforever.org/bflpics/EnvironmentInc.pdf
They say its OK to lie: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/oktolie.html
Examples of their lies: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lie_to_you_1.html
Russian Money promoting Al Gore’s climate scam:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest+Scientific+Fraud
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-7-28-what-the-future-holds-for-our-climate-leaders
Onshore Wind power is ~7 times the cost of Gas-firing
Offshore Wind power is ~16-20 times the cost of Gas-firing.
Solar power is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/11/Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/11/top-climate-scientists-slam-global-warming-so-called-evidence-as-misrepresentation-exaggeration-and-outright-lying/
Highly credible book on climate: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Vinos-CPPF2022.pdf
Highly credible rebuttals of alarmists:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
India Reopens 100 Coal Mines https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/06/08/india-reopens-100-coal-mines/
And China is building coal plants too.
Do you know you are being fed BILLIONAIRE BULL EXCREMENT by the big media?
“They are pouring money into those efforts, as the German journalist Axel Bojanowski pointed out, to a degree that would make the oil lobby blush. At the “Climate Action Summit” in 2018, two dozen billionaire-backed foundations pledged 4 billion dollars for climate-change lobbying. Some of them, like the Hewlett Foundation, are directly funding journalists at the Associated Press for “climate reporting,” while foundations associated with the Packard and Rockefeller families have been backing the journalistic endeavor “Covering Climate Now,” which “collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories” and is financing hundreds of media outlets.” From:
https://www.newsweek.com/climate-activism-isnt-about-planet-its-about-boredom-bourgeoisie-opinion-1773846
JimKarlock:
Ready. Fire. Aim.
Have a good day.
“ready. Fire. Aim.”
WOW what an insightful comment!!!
Why are you laughing at the truth about climate?
Are you incapable of following the links to proof of what I posted?
Are you incapable of following my logic?
If you disagree why not post your reason?
Finally, the fact that you didn’t bother to post actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming shows that you could not show that what I wrote is incorrect – thanks for proving me right?
Peer reviewed just means you found an ideological compatriot willing to claim they read your study.
Are you incapable of following my logic?
If you disagree why not post your reason?
Finally, the fact that you didn’t bother to post actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming shows that you could not show that what I wrote is incorrect – thanks for proving me right?
The good news is, China will be making billions from the US building our batteries, windmills and solar panels. And we will subsidize that.
While our electrical grid fails to keep up, as we move to renewables and green solutions.
China will keep burning dirty coal and ignoring their promise.
Posted to Antipllanner:
I agree with the Antiplanner that worrying about small production of CO2 is not important. It is the big production that is important. However, just stating the CO2 production per country doesn’t mean much compared to per capita production. And because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere what matters is the per capita production over time. This is well explained by MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air” available on line https://www.withouthotair.com/. See this page https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_14.shtml So any discussion on CO2 production should be on a per capita basis over time. In this case China is still much lower than most western nations. The Chinese can justifiably be irritated at being told they should reduce CO2 production when it is much lower per capita than in the US.
What matters is the cost per tonne of CO2 reduction. If a claim of CO2 reduction is made and it doesn’t have a cost per tonne reduction it is meaningless. I have yet to find any “Smart Growth” or “Mass Transit” advocates who know the cost per tonne of CO2 reduction for their projects.
This article has the lists of scientific organizations who https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ As a result claiming that global warming is not man made will result in everything one says being rejected because of this scientific consensus. If one is critiquing a planning or transit project insist on a cost per tonne reduction for any claims that the project reduces CO2 production. If the project doesn’t have the cost, the claim cannot be made.
Per capita numbers might be useful for similar-sized countries, but with 1.4 billion folks, China could probably triple its CO2 production and still emit less per capita than the USA.
Paus Wrote: “So any discussion on CO2 production should be….”
You left out the first step:
SHOW THAT CO2 IS ACTUALLY HARMFUL to out climate.
”
However, just stating the CO2 production per country doesn’t mean much compared to per capita production. And because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere what matters is the per capita production over time
”
In terms of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their total volume is what matters.
Per capita may be applicable to what is wise, fair policy. But as far as the earth processes in play, only total volume matters.
See the graph? India will be following China in future decades. That is the whole enchilada — what China and India do. Africa and the Third World will follow them.
What the USA and Europe does is not going to make any difference. India and China are four times as many people as USA and Europe combined.