posted in Technology
US coal ‘biggest contributor by far’ to rise in global emissions
www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/us-coal-biggest-contributor-by-far-to-rise-in-global-emissions/
Replying to @Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club
From the article: “Make no mistake: China is still by far the biggest CO2 emitter in the world” in absolute terms, Law stressed.
Replying to @How_do_I_computah@lemmy.world
It’s also the biggest country in the world by population, by far. That’s not really indicative of anything. China is also decarbonizing at an absolutely incredible rate, whereas the US are basically doing everything they can to increase their emissions.
Replying to @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
ourworldindata.org/…/annual-co2-emissions-per-cou…
The US has been decreasing emissions for 20 years now. While China, as of 2024, was still exponentially increasing emissions.
cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-coun…
Same with per capita emissions. The US has been cutting per capita emissions for 20 years, while China is still increasing.
Replying to @Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
The US has been cutting per capita emissions for 20 years, while China is still increasing.
But they haven’t caught US yet!
United States: The average American emits roughly 14 to 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
China: The average Chinese citizen emits about 8.7 to 9.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Next question: what’s the average CO2 emission per capita of Billionaires?
A billionaire’s total average carbon footprint is roughly 1.9 million to 3 million metric tons of (CO_{2}) equivalent ((CO_{2}e)) per year.
So, Billionaire’s income ratio is around 500,000:1 of an average US citizen, but their CO2 emissions are only about 170,000x - that makes Billionaires almost 3x greener with their greenbacks than an SUV commuting wage slave.
Your argument is that people who make enough money that they don’t have to spend all their money… Spend their money less than those who do spend all their money.
Replying to @ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
I was going more for the absurdity of a single person emitting more CO2 than a township of 150,000 people, plus the underutilization / hoarding of this imaginary construct: money by the people who have more than they need - as you allude to.
I also agree: the price of things does frequently correlate with CO2 emitted. Even when you hire someone for a service that emits virtually no CO2, what do they do with that money? Turn around and spend it on things that do emit CO2. Much of the cost of goods has to do with the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver the good (again cost correlating with CO2 emissions).
The only “industry” I can think of that moves significant money around without generating CO2 directly is finance, though when the money quits running through finance’s internal spin-cycle and finally hits the real world, it’s again purchasing the relase of CO2.