[rwem]

Because we’re all idiots and waited too long, we need to cut emissions by 15% annually, not 2%. 2% does not even offset the increase in US emissions in 2018. 2% is a disaster.

[paulddraper]

> Because we’re all idiots and waited too long

U.S. CO2 emissions have been steadily falling for over a decade. [1]

Twice that long on a per-capita basis.

Considering that broad consensus about global warming was only formed in 1980s, that's not a terrible track record.

A far bigger problem than stupidity or procrastination is the industrialization of 3 billion people. There's no great solution to that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

[rwem]

They’re not steadily falling. As noted in the article, they were up in 2018.

[mcantelon]

>we need to cut emissions by 15% annually

Such a Great Leap Forward isn't going to happen and even if it did it wouldn't reduce the rest of the world's emissions.

Geoengineering is likely the only way to cool the earth globally.

[lopmotr]

How will people's lives in the future be worse with a 2% annual reduction than 15%? Why do you call it a disaster instead of "worse"?

[scroot]

Yup. This article is reporting bad news, not good news.

[stazz1]

chaos continues into chaos

  we must water the seeds of order

[3fe9a03ccd14ca5]

We don’t need to do anything. We’re responsible for only 15% of worldwide emissions, but nearly all of the new green energy tech and research.

If anything I expect us to increase in CO2 while we retrofit buildings with better technology, build clean power generation and grid tech, and continue in our research.

There are nations that need to drastically cut CO2 but it’s not the United States.

[nicoburns]

only 15%? Given that you have less than 5% if the worlds population, you might want to rethink that being a small number.

[frenchyatwork]

> We’re responsible for only 15% of worldwide emissions, but nearly all of the new green energy tech and research.

That's like trying to sell someone a $10 carrot by saying it's 50% off, or an over-weight person thinking it's okay that they're eating a bag of chips because they went to the gym.

[imtringued]

>There are nations that need to drastically cut CO2 but it’s not the United States.

You can't be serious. There is no plural. There is only one country that emits more than the USA and it has four times as many people, 14% of its emissions are caused by manufacturing products that are consumed in other countries and it has invested more in green technology than any other country on earth.

[ancientworldnow]

Not insignificant portions of the rest of the world's co2 is devoted to supporting the US's consumption. Whether through shipments, production of goods, or disposal of waste we offshore a huge amount of our carbon emissions.

[Slartie]

> We’re responsible for only 15% of worldwide emissions, but nearly all of the new green energy tech and research.

Is "we" the US? laughs

This sentence becomes more true if you replace "we" with "China". Because China actually contributed significantly to green energy tech by making solar panels dead cheap to produce. Or replace it with "Germany". In that case the number is way off (it's more like 2% of worldwide emissions) but the tech contribution holds up if you look for example at wind power plant tech development and having provided monetary incentives for decades already to deploy solar power at large scale (which in turn allowed China to drive down solar production cost by creating the necessary demand for products).

Where is this significant contribution of the US to green energy tech? Because I mostly see significant contributions to keeping the fossil fuel economy alive (large scale research and deployment of fracking tech, cheap gas prices, inefficient car designs and A/C installations anywhere).

[titzer]

> We don’t need to do anything.

The incredible irresponsibility here really earns the downvotes.

As other commenters pointed out, the US still #1 in cumulative emissions, so the warming we see today and for the next ~10 years is mostly due to the US. Second, the US is absolutely terrible when it comes to per-capita emissions. This is not an example for the world to follow. There is zero moral high ground in telling developing nations to cut emissions and yet gluttonously continuing BAU. If they follow the same carbon intensity curve, the planet is absolutely f*ed. The US and western countries have an obligation to demonstrate how to run a complex developed economy with low, or eventually, no emissions.

[UncleMeat]

The US is using, per capita, way way way more carbon than other nations. If we used the same per capita rate as India it would be a 90% reduction. That would be unbelievable. There would be parades in the streets.

[xtian]

We are #1 in cumulative emissions.