Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Don't get confused by this. The takeaway isn't "See how useless our efforts are; greenhouse gas is a load of bunk!"

The takeaway is "We're doing a shit job of reducing greenhouse gasses."

Your logic implies that the efforts we made so far are useless, and we should be doing something else.

I don't think that's the take away as much as "were doing a shit job at forestry and that's just as important as green initiatives".

And maintaining the electrical network. Anyone knows why the electricity companies didn’t do a good job to avoid sparks and contact with trees?

one document you could read is:

Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and Results; PyroLogix/ USFS 27Aug2018

I hear all kinds of narratives on this. According to this EPA article, US emissions are down 20% since 2005.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

Of course, global emissions are way up but we were warned 40 years ago about global coal use.

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

The US has continued to export emissions to other countries, as we export more and more manufacturing.

This isn't entirely true. The US still manufactures a lot of stuff, but does so more efficiently than in the past. The bulk of imported emissions other than electronics and a few minerals are in goods and raw materials that we trade around within NAFTA. A lot of our trade partners are also reducing emissions, even as they export to us. China is our largest partner in terms of our imports, but it only accounts for 16%, while Canada and Mexico represent 14% each.

Yep, the smelters for making engine blocks are in Mexico to pollute over there.

Mexico is still cutting emissions year over year, as I mentioned in another comment Mexico, Canada, and the US are all making CO2 cuts. So even if that particular emissions is moved around all of NAFTA is making emissions progress.

Yes, everyone knows this.

China built the second largest economy, the second largest military, and 3x as much greenhouse gas on the back of US consumer spending.

But hey, people on HN don’t like it when you point out stuff like this.

I think people are hoping for plausible deniability.

With half a century of warning, how did we end up in this climate mess?

“ hey, let’s blame the oil companies“

Only 16% of US imports come from China. The majority of US imports are from nations with falling emissions. Obviously that isn't perfectly illustrative of exact shares of CO2 represented by those imports, but it's a useful proxy.

China is responsible for 27% of total global emissions.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-em...

Some of it can be tied directly to US trade, and some of it can be tied to taking the all those profits and building internally. We exported all that manufacturing which used a lot of dirty coal

The US is 11% of the total.

My point is that the US didn't "export all of its manufacturing" or all of its consumption emissions. Both statements are demonstrably false. Even still, of China's emissions only half are industrial. In the US manufacturing accounts for ~22% of emissions. If all of that manufacturing came back to the US, emissions would likely be lower, especially because we're phasing out coal. Don't get me wrong, it's a problem but the narrative that the US is only cutting emissions because of China's manufacturing is stupid.

Nowhere did I say we exported all of our manufacturing.

China produces half of the world’s steel, for example. Most used internally.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_p...

Largest cement producer in the world by far:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267364/world-cement-prod...

All that industrialization…got China to 27% of total emissions.

When the US released oil from its reserves it has to be sent overseas because of the lack of domestic refineries

https://www.corporateknights.com/energy/is-the-sun-setting-o...

Anyway, yes, part of the reason the US has dropped is because we have closed coal power plants in favor of natural gas, for example. But that’s another discussion

I was responding mostly to the topic of the original comment.

And in the same period of time being considered, California's population got 18% larger. Perhaps the takeaway should be "be wary of non-per-capita figures when trying to measure the totality of a problem."

What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita.

Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing.

> What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita.

What I mean is that you can still see higher total pollution even if you reduce per capita rates while experiencing population growth. Focusing solely on outputs while ignoring input considerations is bad engineering.

> Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing.

Does the article suggest that's happening? Or is it just looking at a year in isolation of all other facts?

and a shit job of managing wildfires.

The only real tool for managing wildfires is controlled burns. The problem is, California isn't burning often enough [1].

The question is, if these areas were managed properly, with controlled burns, what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? I imagine proper management wasn't included in the emissions goals.

Related, we have some endangered pyrophytic [2] plants near where I live. I imagine they'll be extinct, within my lifetime.

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte

edit: perhaps you had this in mind with "managing wildfires".

> what would the greenhouse gas emissions be?

Zero or minus, because you’re still burning a carbon capture tool.

It’s not a joke, it’s important. In Australia they forbade controlled burnings for 10 years. Result: A 10-year burn. CO2 emissions: Still 0 over 10 years, but lots of homesteads burnt.

I mean, we're fighting wildfires about as good as anyone could.

What CA doesn't do well is manage forests.

The vast majority of burns are on federal land. CA does not manage national forests.

Last I knew (as I lived right by areas that were constantly burning) Cal Fire had the contacts to maintain the majority of the federal land in northern California.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com