Comment by wrong_variable | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wrong_variable | Hacker News Reader

The main driver of C02 reduction is based around geopolitical forces and national interest, and the west is on the wrong side of history on this one.

We got lucky that China / East Asia / India do not have access to cheap hydrocarbon, aligning their national interest with that of longer term survival of humanity.

Some dude in BC is vacuuming up C02 in his backyard and this becomes news ?

Meanwhile ...

- China continues to shave off millions barrels of global oil consumption due to their initiatives involving electric buses for the masses.

- China dumps so much solar production capacity on the market that it undercuts coal and gas.

The solution to climate change is not going to come from cute startups but from national projects.

When history books are written, the pages will be filled with praises of national initiatives taken by govts of south korea, china, germany, ... ( india ? not sure yet have to wait and see ).

Pretty words are not going to be written about the richest and most carbon intensive nation on earth along with its cronies ( Canada / Australia / UK ) actively undermining efforts to fight climate change ( while continuing to export and use fossil fuels to support the bulk of their GDP ).

But you will always have some dude vacuuming up CO2 in his backyard in BC to provide moral licensing.

China may be on the right side with clean energy, but also on the wrong side with massively increasing their methane output, increasing desertification, etc: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/29/can-the-...

In terms of residence in the atmosphere methane is reported to have a half-life of about 7 years. Carbon dioxide's is much much longer with estimates from 40 -> N years where N might be in the thousands.

So you are saying it could be worse. However, if they raised those cows properly it would even help with fighting climate change. But I'm sure they are going down the animal factory route instead.

The UK has cut emissions more than ANY other country

The UK has outsourced it emission .. since it helps prop up property prices in London to not have industrial waste being dumped into the Thames.

Also the money from pollution in China/Russia/ME ends up leaking to buy up property in London because you know .. nobody wants to live near a coal mine.

The UK provides direct military support to the Kingdom of Brunei - one of the largest exporter of Petroleum.

The UK props up several petro states in ME if you haven't noticed and also sends its own men to die in case their ME cronies are threatened.

UK oil companies help loot the natural resources of Nigeria and then provide banking services to a small group of warloads to hide that wealth.

The UK is the big spider in the middle of the global web that connects oil, blood and money.

Do you think other developed countries do not import manufactured goods from China? Those countries have outsourced their emissions and still increased domestic emissions. UK domestic per capita emissions are half what they were in 1990, which is unprecedented. Other than altering the trade deals, which the UK does not have the power to do anyway, it’s difficult to see what else could be done.

I found different data. Perhaps the UK cut emissions by a larger % but US by nominal tons?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-...

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.

> annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

This is deceptive.

The emissions per capita in the US were much larger than in the UK or the EU to start with, which means still many low hanging fruits waiting to be picked. The lower your emissions are from the start, the harder it is to lower them even further...

In other words, UK per capita emissions have fallen 30% more than the US since 2005. And that is from a much lower base.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com