Exxon Predicts World Will Miss Climate-Change Targets | Hacker News Reader

Exxon Predicts World Will Miss Climate-Change Targets

wsj.com

8 pointsmfiguiere26 comments

Open articleView on HN

US has been lowering total CO2 emissions since 2007.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb....

China, on the other hand, has been increasing emissions. It's currently more than double what the US emissions are.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-e....

Not sure how we plan on lowering China's emissions.

Understandably the magnitude amount matters more for the environment, but per capita China is half of what US is, no? The trend line is worrying of course, but in per capita terms US is still much worse.

I'm not sure that matters. For example, Russia, per capita has way more nuclear weapons than the US. If a nuclear exchange happens, I don't think that statistic makes much difference.

I certainly welcome you to convince me otherwise.

Each person in the US uses significantly more energy than each person in China. As a nation, China has more people but use less energy per person. We (the U.S.) should work on reducing our per person usage.

How in the world does your example/ analogy apply to this in any way

>How in the world does your example/ analogy apply to this in any way

If a nuclear exchange happens, it doesn't matter what the per capita nuclear warhead statistic is, it just matters the total number of detonations. Warming is the same, the per capita CO2 emissions isn't important (other than for shaming purposes), it's the total emissions. Total emissions is what drives warming, not per capita emissions.

You seem to want to give China a pass because their CO2 per capita is lower than the US even though their total emissions is more than double, which kinda proves my point.

Qatar has the highest per capita emissions in the world, but they are 40th in total emissions. Drastically lowering their emissions will have very little effect on warming.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

That’s like saying the amount of calories someone consumes is irrelevant to their weight.

I’m not giving China a pass. If anything, we need to prepare for a world where developing nations might meet the same standard of living we have in the US, their emissions per capita will increase

Using your analogy, your strategy is to stop eating candy bars, but it's ok to eat 5x the calories of a single candy bar in broccoli because broccoli per item is fewer calories. That's obviously flawed because it's the total amount of calories, not the calories in any particular food.

Why would some people get to have a higher budget for CO2 emissions but not others? If you want to say that every drop doesn't count, that's a red flag in your argument and a slippery slope. Inflated per-capita emissions is an indicator of inefficiencies.

A substantial amount of the Chinese population lives in extreme poverty too, so surely that skews their per capita emissions.

Maybe America should just have a population boom. Double the population but refuse to provide power and infrastructure to the new half of the population, make them live subsistence lifestyles. Boom, per capita emissions cut substantially

Consider this: The total emission amount of the entire East Coast of the US is much bigger than that of California. Since the total amount (and not per capita) is what matters, we should focus on how to lower the East Coast's emissions and pay less attention to California.

In other words, one can look at "China" as just a big inclusion circle around a group of people.

I would agree with that. The goal is to lower total emissions, best is to concentrate on the areas that emit the most. How many people who happen to live there is meaningless.

This isn't at all like nuclear weapons though. Carbon emissions are demand based, and if China (the government or the people) thought that burning more carbon right now would provide advantages (that are outweighed by whatever perceived cost they or their government imposes), they would do so.

It's not like there's going to be a 'carbon emissions exchange' where everyone rapidly decides to start burning way more stuff... you need to do something with that energy generated.

Both the US and China emit way more than Liechtenstein.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LIE/liechtenstein/carb...

Chinas emissions are, in significant part … from providing goods for export.

That context is important because outsourcing manufacturing to China is not reducing emissions, it’s moving them.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's only 14%. It was much higher like you describe in the past, but China's massive internal buildup probably reduced that number significantly

https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2#:~:text=For....

"We're doing our best to help make sure that prediction comes to pass!"

It is common and convenient to blame big oil companies for climate change, but they are not creating the demand for hydrocarbons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

That's why you never see them trying to increase hydrocarbon use through marketing, lobbying for favorable laws and against other energy sources, and so on.

can you also explain fifty years of leaded gas ?

Yes. Adding lead to fuel makes it better and less expensive, which is why it's still done for aviation fuel. I'm not advocating for it, of course, but acting as if there is some kind of conspiracy is just ridiculous. Humans, historically, have consumed all available energy resources; the humans who consume the most energy generally have the largest advantage. This simple fact does not seem likely to change.

let us read this together

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

also see "The Secret History of Lead" by Jamie Kitman

>It is common and convenient to blame big oil companies for climate change, but they are not creating the demand for hydrocarbons.

It is common and convenient to blame drug dealers for fentanyl deaths, but they are not creating the demand for opoids.

Wolf predicts sheep won't make it past dinner?

https://archive.is/aL1fX

Reply on news.ycombinator.com