tomkaz

USA CO2 Levels Drop Again - Why Aren’t Greens Rejoicing at the Good News?

12 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

OK, back in 1950, the USA emitted 15.6 metric tons of CO2 per person per year and rose further in the subsequent years. 

 

In 2017, it has just been reported, emissions have dropped, again, now to 15.8 metric tons, the lowest level in 67 YEARS

 

So where are the Green Group celebrations? USA GDP is rising while emissions are declining, isn’t that a win?

 

And how is USA comparing to Europe, the home of the Green Movement? Well, with all the regulation in Europe, including the shuttering of coal plants and the promotion of alternatives, European emissions rose 1.5% in 2017 while USA output fell -0.05%. That USA decline was best performance in the world and the ninth time in the 21st century that the USA led the world.

 

WTF is up with that?

 

Trump left the Paris accord and rejected Obama-era EPA restrictions which was supposed to visit disaster on the USA environment, but it has not. 

 

So what do we make of environmentalism when strict adherence to their notions does not lead to the results they suggest?

 

 

Before anyone beats me up for not stating the source, it is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2018 using the methodology set forth by the UN IPCC in its Guidelines for Natonial Greenhouse Gas Inventories published in 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greens will only be satisfied when every last Trump supporter no longer contributes to CO2 production by breathing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things will be much better in 20 years, when China and India begin to lower CO2 levels.   

They promised.  

 

America last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 mins ago, JohnP said:

When do you believe the science and when do you not?

I believe measured statistics that are free of selective measurement or heavy data massaging. Measurements that have been reviewed and can be replicated and/or confirmed. 

 

I am always skeptical of long-term projections based on algorithms of limited utility and really poor backtesting results.

 

I have made the comparison to long-range precision shooting here when it comes to 25, 50 or 100 year projections - too many factors involved to expect precision results, especially if there is no humility in the lack of reliability in such projections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 9:50 AM, JohnP said:

When do you believe the science and when do you not?

Computer modelling is not reliable, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 9:50 AM, JohnP said:

When do you believe the science and when do you not?

Had you been completely on top of all the latest scientific theories....say 200 years ago, you would have believed in some bad stuff. Much of what is held in high regard today, will in time, also be seen as scientific misadventures, with current climate theories being tops on the list of misunderstandings.

 

Yet ‘believers’ insist that everyone either completely agrees with their opinions or else be mocked. When in reality the things you believe as truths, are more accurately labeled as really poor guesses. I mock the believers’ mythology and rejoice that there are enough people remaining skeptical to deny the communists their destruction of our economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that's good news for America is bad news for Democrats as long as Trump is President. Democrats can only tolerate America succeeding if they get credit for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 2:37 PM, jonesg said:

Computer modelling is not reliable, not science.

But it is put forward as 'settled science' is that the same as science or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 mins ago, zybathegeek said:

But it is put forward as 'settled science' is that the same as science or not?

Look closer, it falls apart under scrutiny. Bear in mind science is not conducted by fallacy ad populum. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, jonesg said:

Look closer, it falls apart under scrutiny. Bear in mind science is not conducted by fallacy ad populum. 

 

Populist truths need repetition to remain constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zybathegeek said:

Populist truths need repetition to remain constant.

The less dramatic the change , the more shrill they become. 

Follow the money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.