Carbon emissions up 3% from last year

[Tierbook]

Carbon emissions from the planet are up 3% from last year with the biggest increase coming from China, America and Germany were the only 2 nations to reduce their emissions

Source

[Spectral]

Other nations reduced emissions, Germany and the US were just the only two among the top ten that cut emissions, just to be clear.

Here's a chart from 2010 to give everyone an idea of what the starting points for each of these countries was before last year's accounting:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...re-of-co2.html

[Catta]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

[Spectral]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

Probably for the same basic reason the United States does - it's spread out. A huge amount of CO2 emissions is in transportation. While reducing emissions is surely a good idea, I think some folks (not saying you!) get too much in the habit of thinking that a country that has lower emissions is automatically doing something right rather than having geographic or demographic advantages that allow them to use less energy.

[Chump]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

Reliance on fossil fuels for power generation. Transport and agriculture also play a big role.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm

[Anakso]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

We eat a lot of beans....

On a serious note, it's probably because we are kind of like America in that we drive everywhere. In England (or at least my area of England) The idea of driving a distance you could walk in 20minutes or so was quite laughable. Unless it was pouring it down. And I know from people on this forum that many EU countries have a HUGE amount of cyclists. Here I'd be surprised to see the 6 bicycle holding bike rack filled up, honestly I'd be surprised to see more than 1 bike in it at once. America kind of has an excuse though, a lot of places in America from what I understand are quite spread out. At my work, most people live fairly close but I'm one of the only ones that walks to work.

I guess we also aren't doing as much to help cut our emissions else where, compared to America since Americas emissions are dropping.

EDIT: And I know from Korean shows and anime that Asian countries also have a lot of cyclists.

[Dakia]

Carbon emissions from the planet are up 3% from last year with the biggest increase coming from China, America and Germany were the only 2 nations to reduce their emissions

Source

Not surprisingly really.

No matter how much people push the green movement in the US, other countries simply don't care and are willing to take up the production slack.

[obdigore]

We eat a lot of beans....

On a serious note, it's probably because we are kind of like America in that we drive everywhere. In England (or at least my area of England) The idea of driving a distance you could walk in 20minutes or so was quite laughable. Unless it was pouring it down. And I know from people on this forum that many EU countries have a HUGE amount of cyclists. Here I'd be surprised to see the 6 bicycle holding bike rack filled up, honestly I'd be surprised to see more than 1 bike in it at once. America kind of has an excuse though, a lot of places in America from what I understand are quite spread out. At my work, most people live fairly close but I'm one of the only ones that walks to work.

I guess we also aren't doing as much to help cut our emissions else where, compared to America since Americas emissions are dropping.

EDIT: And I know from Korean shows and anime that Asian countries also have a lot of cyclists.

In the US in the cities you have lots of cyclists and foot traffic. Out in the suburbs stuff is much more spread out, for instance I have a 9 mile drive to the closest Grocery Store if I don't want to go to a quick store on the corner. Meanwhile lots of people in the US commute into the cities for work every weekday, and that drive can be upwards of an hour... it is really just a cultural thing. Also, gas is a ton cheaper here.

[Anakso]

In the US in the cities you have lots of cyclists and foot traffic. Out in the suburbs stuff is much more spread out, for instance I have a 9 mile drive to the closest Grocery Store if I don't want to go to a quick store on the corner. Meanwhile lots of people in the US commute into the cities for work every weekday, and that drive can be upwards of an hour... it is really just a cultural thing. Also, gas is a ton cheaper here.

Yea figured about the commuting. It happens here too, but people still drive even if they don't need to commute. And in Australia/NZ I've actually never lived not in walking distance of a supermarket. (maximum travel time probably 15minutes) but I see very few people walking, and far less people than that cycling.

[Olo]

To be fair, America's declining emissions has more to do with our natural gas boom than any green movement.

[ShmooDude]

A question (honest question, please don't flame).

Has anyone found proof (or strong evidence) that humanity's increased carbon emissions are in fact the cause of global warming?

Given the following:
The 'greenhouse' effect of carbon dioxide is real (that's been proven).
The planet has been warming up (at least for the past decade).

However, as many people on this forum are fan of saying, correlation does not equal causation.

What evidence do we have that it is in fact our excess production of carbon dioxide? Are we actually increasing the concentration in our atmosphere to the extent it actually has any effect? If so, what level does it need to be brought down to be considered "normal" (ie what is the "natural" level of carbon dioxide). If not, at what point will it start having an effect?

I just doubt that (though I'm happy to be proved wrong) the amount we're producing would really have any measurable effect on a planetary scale. The change in global temperatures could have any number of causes; why is this the correct one?

[Afrospinach]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

Dispersed population is less efficient, oddly enough I believe NZ is also way up there in environmental costs(I don't specifically know CO2) despite having a clean, green image AND generating over 70% of our electricity from hydro.

To be fair, America's declining emissions has more to do with our natural gas boom than any green movement.

It may surprise you that America has actually been reducing emissions per capita for a while(even if overall emissions having been increasing).

[Deleted]

During an economic crunch like we are suffering, it's easier to reduce your emissions simply because your industrial activity isn't growing. Also, a lot of the western industrial production is now taken over by countries who are greatly increasing their emisions.

A question (honest question, please don't flame).
What evidence do we have that it is in fact our excess production of carbon dioxide? Are we actually increasing the concentration in our atmosphere to the extent it actually has any effect? If so, what level does it need to be brought down to be considered "normal" (ie what is the "natural" level of carbon dioxide). If not, at what point will it start having an effect?

I just doubt that (though I'm happy to be proved wrong) the amount we're producing would really have any measurable effect on a planetary scale. The change in global temperatures could have any number of causes; why is this the correct one?

This question is in fact easy to answer. There are several methods, but the strongest links are:
-Atmospheric CO2 increase closely follows our calculated human-made CO2.
-Increase in CO2 matches the reduction rate of atmostpheric O2 (this only happens if the CO2 is produced through combustion, not through vulcanism or oceanic CO2 precipitation.
-Isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon is changing in a way that tells us that most of the CO2 increase seems to be, in fact, antropogenic.

[Spectral]

Has anyone found proof (or strong evidence) that humanity's increased carbon emissions are in fact the cause of global warming?

There's very strong evidence supporting this theory. It's not a fact, but it's strongly supported by quite a bit of evidence.

However, as many people on this forum are fan of saying, correlation does not equal causation.

The folks that say this as if it's insightful don't understand science. Cherrypicking things that are correlated shows nothing (Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy), but when there's a mechanistically sound hypothesis that's then supported by correlation, that's actually a pretty strong piece of evidence in favor of that hypothesis. It's not the final word, but it's a relevant data point. Doing science would be impossible if we were forced to pretend that correlation has nothing to do with causation.

What evidence do we have that it is in fact our excess production of carbon dioxide?

This review might be of interest to you: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

Are we actually increasing the concentration in our atmosphere to the extent it actually has any effect?

Yes, our contribution is measurable and significant. Some key indicators can be found here: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

If so, what level does it need to be brought down to be considered "normal" (ie what is the "natural" level of carbon dioxide). If not, at what point will it start having an effect?

There's already an observed effect. As far as what's optimal, I don't claim to know.

[Deleted]

Nothing new. The world is led by some Necromancers.

Burning all the jungle / forest.

Bringing to the surface, spread in the air, all the carbon and Fossil Fuel ( liquid and gaz ) to BURN them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

Killing, poisoning all the life, between water and air and in the ground ( Monsanta: My satan)

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aess/2010/816073/


Open your eyes.

[Deleted]

There's already an observed effect. As far as what's optimal, I don't claim to know.

Observations are pointing that the oceans are near their limit of absorbing CO2, which was our main buffer against steep increases in the atmosphere. If that's confirmed, there might be no safe amount of CO2 production we could fall back to.

[Rukentuts]

To be fair, America's declining emissions has more to do with our natural gas boom than any green movement.

Higher MPG and other technology too.

[Reeve]

I wonder why Australia produces so much emission per capita...

I'd imagine it's partly because it's so spread out and parly because they're huge into mining industries.

---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 03:28 PM ----------

To be fair, America's declining emissions has more to do with our natural gas boom than any green movement.

I imagine it actually has a lot to do with increasing fuel economy in our cars too. I know over the last 10 years or so, I've gone from 17 mpg to 24 mpg to 35 mpg to now 40 mpg.

[Flutterguy]

3%?! Why... That's almost nothing.

[semaphore]

A question (honest question, please don't flame).

Has anyone found proof (or strong evidence) that humanity's increased carbon emissions are in fact the cause of global warming?

The evidence is unequivocal.

Given the following:
The 'greenhouse' effect of carbon dioxide is real (that's been proven).
The planet has been warming up (at least for the past decade).

However, as many people on this forum are fan of saying, correlation does not equal causation.

It is an indisputable fact that human increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's direct causation, not correlation.