* Swiss CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 4.17
* US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5
Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in the EU and much lower than Australia/Canada/US. Just for context.
* US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5
Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in the EU and much lower than Australia/Canada/US. Just for context.
also how much pollution is caused by corporations from Switzerland...
Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territori... https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-p...
Something like 'median density': sort citizens by local density, find the median, and report that. My guess is that California would have a higher number than Florida by that measure. I don't know about Switzerland vs. California, but that's the question I'd like to answer here!
The median approach does risk minor artifacts based on the divisions used to calculate density (census tracts in the United States), but since we're looking for a median value, and census tracts are pretty small, it should be reasonably precise.
Europe, not the EU
From a ballpark look, your numbers look to be production-based accounting. If you look at Switzerland with consumption-based accounting[0], it looks pretty bad with higher per-capita emissions, and an upward trend while other comparably rich European countries have a downward trend.
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland#consumpti...
As an example, in north of Sweden there is a lot of focus on creating green steel, most which will be exported. With consumption-based accounting, all that investment will have close to zero impact on the Swedish efforts to reduce CO2, as otherwise we would have double accounting.
Consumption-based accounting has it uses but one need to be very careful in interpreting them. A country that has a lot of coal power plants should not be seen as decreasing their pollution if they suddenly start to export most of it. Some blame should be put at the consumer end, but the primary focus must sit on those who actually pollute the environment.
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...
There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people.
It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.
Also the USA have reentered the Paris climate accords. So at least the current government commits to decarbonisation.
I think there will be a significant problem for free trade when some nations put effort into decarbonisation and others do not and continue to use cheap energy. I do not, for instance, think that the EU will simply roll over and let relatively cheap US products flood the market when their own companies are not competitive anymore.