The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn't Need The Paris Climate Accord
By: Ellen R. Wald (Forbes)
Interesting........to say the least.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ellen R. WaldFormer ContributorOpinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.Markets
Yesterday, The United Nations released its Emissions Gap Report 2020, an annual assessment of contributions to greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. The report has some notable information amid an array of complicated projections that may or may not come true. It claims, for instance, that "despite a brief dip in carbon dioxide emissions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is still heading for a temperature rise."
But for the United States, the real value in this report is as an advisory that it need not join the Paris Climate Accord. This report is evidence that, instead, the U.S. should just keep doing what it is doing to cut its own emissions. The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution, and the U.N. shows this.
According to the report, "the United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions." Comparatively, "China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions." The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country's GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year)." Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world's most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.
And the U.S. is making these improvements while it refuses to participate in the Paris Climate Accord. In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, "compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates." Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.
If the current plan is working to cut emissions, don't mess with it.
Author's advertising himself and his book deleted SP
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
But, but, but...............Can't be true...........
It's not true. The UN never said that the US doesn't need the Paris Climate Accord, that was the opinion of the author, not part of the UN report. The title of the seeded article is misleading at best.
Consider the source.
Just who the hell decided to give us code names?
to National Economic Research Associates
Every regulation costs jobs.
Clean air = job loss.
Mercury level controls - job loss.
Clean drinking water = job loss.
Various industries have paid NERA for similar reports over the years.
They are a one trick pony.
Clean air = Lives saved.
Mercury level controls = Lives saved
Clean drinking water = Lives saved
The United States is needed in the Paris Accord in order to fund the needed infrastructure in developing countries .. I am all for the attempts to clean up the planet, as well as the attempt to manipulate the effects of a warming planet... yet once again it is all about money..
We need to spend said money to clean up our own forests, putting trees back to work doing their jobs in nature. BUT no, we allow them to die out becoming fuel for wild fires, 'we' have 'protected' them to death! .. do whatever is necessary to prevent the destruction of the rain forests .. stop the development of wetlands, the planet needs them to protect itself from man - there are a lot of things that can be done to protect the planet outside of implementing a 'green new deal' type legislation...
Alas it is above my pay grade .. I have to sit back and watch trees die while farting cows are focused on ....!
Peace Jim
It isn't. Another bullshit seed written by an author from an energy think tank.
She lies about what the report says.
The seeded article is the truth
You wouldn't know the truth if it bite you on the ass Xx.
Which is why what the Jack ass in chief is doing is so freakin asinine....
And the source is Forbes, so we won't get challenged on the basics.
It is only common sense. There is basically one country that was so wealthy that it could actually stifle some of it's economy to promote a clean environment agenda. The rest of the world seems to be in a race to develop economically. As we know, but seldom admit, one nation by itself cannot repair/cultivate a healthy environment.
It's an opinion published on Forbes, with a misleading title.
So you dispute a fact when it is clearly laid out to you. It's an opinion supported by facts. The title is true, whether you agree with it or not.
The US has cut emissions more than any other country. Prove that it hasn't. And tell us why these other countries can't achieve the same results without our participation and expenditure of our dollars...if they wanted to.
One that can't be censored here!
Wrong. The title "The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn't Need The Paris Climate Accord" is false. The UN did not say "America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn't Need The Paris Climate Accord". Not ever. So, the title is not just misleading, it is a lie.
Seems that a lot of posters on here need to go back to school to figure out what is a lie and what isn't.
Nope, I addressed no fact other then the FACT that the UN did not say we didn't need the Paris Climate Accord, the author did. Are you claiming otherwise???
What the fuck are you talking about????
The piece is making a fairly solid claim - the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement. It presents evidence from the UN's Emissions Gap Report 2020 - hence the title.
To call the assessment false because the UN didn't specifically say those words is an unscrupulous attempt at derailing the premise.
It might be better if you would try and contest the claim - that the US is rapidly reducing gas emissions without the Paris agreement. Good luck with that.
The MBFC.
They can't debunk the truth, and that infuriates them
Not for want of trying!
Ellen Wald is an energy historian writing about how governments and energy businesses interact globally. Give her a call and ask her to join.
yes, continued conversion from coal to gas, increased solar & wind in Texas, increased home solar across the country
and 40% reduction in auto & truck traffic due to COVID.
Who knows what post COVID wll bring.
One can also assume with all of the pledges to electric cars, China and the US will be the leaders there.
Cry me a river of BS. The UN did not say it. That makes it false. Period. Full Stop.
Actually, it isn't supported by facts, the author lies about what the report states.
I don't need luck, I have facts:
From the report:
While the EU27+UK:
I hope that even YOU can admit that .4% is LESS than 1.5%.
No she didn't, she rebutted your comment.
She "rebutted" THIS then............
In response to this............
To VIc. And she answered her own question by posting the blowup
THIS is what she rebutted Jim.
And it wasn't Vic, who just happened to be the subject of her question. She responded to Texan with that post.
Wow Jim, your defending Tex more than you are your own seed.
Yet after multiple posts refuting the false statements in the seed, neither you nor the seeder has even tried to prove you or the seed are correct.
It seems proclaiming it is all you've got.
I suggest you review how many times you have demanded proof from members who posted 'truth' Tex.
Fail.
Or it actual truth.
I know how you represent yourself here on NT Tex. That isn't speculation. What more need I know?
Well, I had a reply that took a couple of hours to research and type but then got distracted by life issues and I have not gotten back to that computer since.
From the Article:
Towards the first part of that statement :
And the Second;
The United States cannot, by itself, address the issue of climate change. That, combined with with the fact that we are the leaders in per capita CO2 emissions means that we should be in the Paris agreement. It is all good that we are theoretically reaching some of the goals of the Paris Agreement, but we need to do quite a bit more than we are doing.
From the report ( Page 21 of the PDF, page XXI of the Executive Summary )
It is possible that we can reach these ambitious goals without the Paris Agreement, but that is not really why the agreement was made. The reason was to work together as a collective planet instead of a bunch of disparate nation states.
This is absolutely correct! My feeling is that it really doesn't matter whether we are part of the accord, but it does matter that we set an example. I posted this on another article, but I feel it warrants repeating here:
Honestly the US is already moving faster than most countries to reduce its carbon footprint without currently being part of the Paris Accord. Although whether we rejoin the accord or not, the fight to stop climate change will require a global effort, not just an effort on our part or Europe's part. Rather tough to see that happening given the facts in THIS article .
Meanwhile in other parts of the world....
If we don't address what the two largest populations in the world are doing, then the Paris Accord isn't worth the parchment it is written upon.
Indeed!
Indeed, as shown in the graphs above from the article and originally from the Gap Report itself, China has increased its own carbon total more than 300% relative to 1990 and India has more than doubled theirs. Some more interesting observations can be made from these graphs:
The per capita numbers are certainly something we need to work on. Although, these higher numbers could be at least partially a result of the fact the the US produces a great deal of the food and other manufactured goods that are needed/used all over the world, not just here. So I'm not inclined to blame all of the per capita CO2 output on domestic overconsumption, but it is certainly something we can work on, and clearly have been working on.
There’s always that matter...
Forbes twists the truth on a regular basis.
From YOUR seed:
Ellen R. Wald Former Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
And yet Forbes published it. If it was bullshit why would they?
Is it revelatory to you that media outlets publish OPINIONS they don't necessarily support Jim?
Opinion pieces are not news. That said it's my opinion it should be the ideals of this nation to be an exceptional example and an honorable global leader. We can't do that under the "American Only" policies of the last administration.
Exactly. They are just that-opinion. And everybody has one. I'm more interested in evidence and facts.
You tend to ignore facts not to your liking
No, I ignore BS!
There is a problem with ignoring far right fascism. It spreads like cancer.
Glad that Antifa exists.
P.S. Only earned a Masters degree.
You speak great truth there!
Americas domestic terrorists.
So the author of the seeded article wrote an over simplified title and the fact checkers declare it false. But that fact checking completely (and deliberately) ignores the evidence and facts.
Interesting........to say the least.
The United States hasn't needed international accords to address domestic environmental issues in the past. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act wasn't the result of any international agreement. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act wasn't established by international agreement. The Environmental Protection Agency is a part of the United States government; not part of the United Nations.
The United Nations has published data, evidence, and facts that show the United States doesn't need COP21 to reduce the country's carbon emissions. The United States was reducing its carbon emissions before COP21 and continued to reduce its emissions without COP21. The UN data, evidence, and facts show that COP21 is unnecessary for the United States.
Political scientists, who claim to be climate scientists, are exploiting a problem for their own self interest. COP21 only provides a political benefit and the fact checkers must deliberately ignore the real data, evidence, and facts to lie about the purpose of COP21. The data, evidence, and facts really does suggest that COP21 contributes nothing and accomplishes nothing.
And now geriatric Joe proposes this much money to address the climate "crisis"
The climate crisis has been a crisis for many years now.
Way past time for the fossil fuel industry to stop denying it.
The more the better. This transition cannot happen soon enough.
I think the key info from the article and the linked publication, lies in the graph... specifically the per capita. Note the global emissions per capita (black line) and keep in mind the expectation for that number to be reduced by 2030 to achieve 2.0c. Then look at the countries above that reduced line. The only area/region likely to come close would be the EU-UK area, with a further reduction of 21.4% following the past 10 years of 17%.
The USA has done well with a 10% reduction, but needs another 65%. China needs a 29% reduction; Russia - 60%; Japan - 36%. All are based on current populations.
The above is for 2.0c change at 41 GTCO2e by 2030. To hit the 1.5c change by 2100, would require another 40% drop by 2030. Or about where India is on the chart.
It's all in the report.
COP21 doesn't address per capita emissions. COP21 addresses national emissions. The reported national emissions are relevant to COP21; per capita emissions are not relevant to COP21.
The data also shows that per capita emissions have been falling except for China and India. China and India are pursuing industrial development as a means of growing their economies and improving lifestyles. The danger is if China and India begin developing service economies.
The problem that the United States must confront in reducing per capita emissions is immigration. People are not immigrating to the United States to reduce their carbon footprints. IMO, the United States must also address its dependence upon service businesses. An industrial economy requires transportation of goods. But a service economy requires transportation of people which can never be as efficient as transportation of goods. Humans are bulky and cannot be containerized in an efficient manner.
This article is based on the Emissions Gap Report , which I am referencing.
The data clearly indicates the fall is not sufficient to achieve targets.
Yes, the opinion of the author (of the seeded article) is based upon the Emissions Gap Report. The author's opinion is that data, evidence, and facts presented in the Emissions Gap Report doesn't support that the United States needs to be part of the Paris Climate Accord. The author is following the evidence to a conclusion expressed as an opinion.
The Paris Climate Accord won't assist the United States in reducing emissions any faster. The United States has been reducing its emissions and that has been the result of internal actions. The Paris Climate Accord has contributed nothing to the United States reducing its emissions.
Will the United States reducing its emissions to zero achieve global targets?
I haven't delved into the Emissions Gap Report so do not know if lowered emissions as a result of the pandemic has been addressed. Other reporting suggests that restrictions to address the pandemic have also reduced GHG emissions. What activities have been restricted and how much have those restrictions lowered GHG emissions?
The pandemic may provide a more practical approach to addressing GHG emissions than will the Paris Climate Accord. And we didn't need the Paris Climate Accord to achieve GHG reductions resulting from pandemic restrictions. So what does the Paris Climate Accord really accomplish?
Nope the author is attempting to indicate that US reductions are sufficient to alleviate global emissions. They are not. In fact, very few regions/areas/countries have sufficient programs in place, with the exception of the EU-UK, which still falls short of the -1.5c year 2100 goal for 2030.
The most meaningful thing being done by everyone... is "blame assignment".
I do not see that in the author's writing. Could you point it out?
The most meaningful thing currently being done is avoiding travel (particularly long-distance travel) and shutting down venues where people gather. The restrictions imposed by the pandemic have contributed to a quantifiable reduction in GHG emissions.
Maybe we can't return to business as usual and also meet the emission targets. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. The pandemic has shown us what to do. We just need to do more of the same.
If simple reduction over time is the target, then the author would have a point. HOWEVER, that reduction will NOT assist in achievement of global emission targets.
Yes, down 7% estimated. 7.6% reduction per year is required to achieve the 2030 target. That is each and every year a reduction from the previous year.
As you highlight, the author didn't say the United States has done enough. The quote you highlighted states that U.S. should just keep doing what it is doing to cut its own emissions.
The United States won't meet any target if it does not continue doing what it is doing to reduce emissions. A target is an endpoint that tells us when we've done enough.
And if we return to business as usual we will lose that gain in achieving any sort of target. President Obama committed the United States to reducing its CO 2 emissions from 6,132 mmt (the 2005 baseline) to approx. 4,500 mmt by 2025 (a 26 pct reduction). The information I've found predicted that the United States emissions would be approx. 5,100 mmt (a 17 pct reduction). [ Here's what the US actually agreed to in the Paris climate deal ] The problem with determining where the United States actually stands toward meeting the goal is that the Paris Climate Accord is based upon net emissions, not total emissions.
We have achieved a larger reduction than predicted for 2020 due to the pandemic. The pandemic has provided a gain toward meeting the target and going back to business as usual will be a set back. The United States has been on track to reduce emissions from baseline by 22 to 24 pct by 2025. Yes, that's above the target goal but certainly not enough to constitute a crisis.
Unless the goal was inadequate to begin with.
Then what was the purpose of the Paris Climate Accord?
We drove less due to the pandemic. Not enough.
Still need more GHG restrictions.
True. But it did demonstrate how reduced emissions can reduce air pollution and increase air quality. As an added bonus, improved air quality can also mitigate or prevent health issues associated with air pollution, thereby reducing health costs and improving quality of life.
It is about blame assignment and geopolitics. Why is that so hard to understand?
I paid attention to my MPG for the first time in a long time.
Seems we're fifty years too late.
Better late than never I suppose.
Population isn’t the correct measurement standard here. GDP output per country is. China may have 4.5x our population but their economy is half the size of ours and puts out 2x as much pollution as we do.
Claiming GDP output correlates to emissions is akin to claiming deaths from covid-19 correlates to a nation's healthcare system. Both would be the textbook definition of a false dichotomy.
From 1990 to 2019, the U.S. GDP grew 350%, although greenhouse emissions grew 16%. However, the goal is to decrease emissions 40% below the 1990 level by year 2030.
The equitable standard is per capita. Neither China nor the U.S. will meet that equitable standard.
Apparently Gov Greg Abbott is feeling lonely
Another wasted EO.
It's lonely at the top. Texas has installed over 24 gigawatts of wind generation capacity. Iowa ranks second at about 11 gigawatts of wind generation capacity.
Typical politician speak - nothing could be farther from the truth.
Wind farms are here to stay and expand, no POTUS will stop that,
Top ten US states by wind energy capacity
The linked article is a little out of date.
What any POTUS should do is ensure that wind and solar generation is manufactured in the United States. Our ability to reduce carbon emissions depend upon it.
A top priority of our government should be encouraging the switch and providing as much incentive to manufacture those products here. Hell, what people in states that rely heavily on the fossil fuel industry SHOULD be hammering their reps about is "what are YOU doing to help us transition away from fossil fuels and into the clean energy sector?"
Yeah, the blathering pinheads always talk about creating millions of new jobs. But they always ignore the jobs that will be lost.
They had their hay day. It's over.
UAW told GM & Ford
they don't care if they are installing electric motors or combustion engines, they are getting over the emotional ties to
oil, gas & exhaust.
Eventually, no oil, no gas, no antifreeze, no brake fluids, probably no power steering fluid.
Winning!!!
That's not anything new or novel.
What is amazing is how often we've seen disruptions and we keep making the same stupid mistake of ignoring the consequences.
Green energy isn't as clean as has been hyped. The tech industry has left behind a lot of superfund sites. Manufacturing electronics is a nasty business.
Which won't create any new jobs. The workers on the line will still be the same workers on the line. And they will still be doing the same jobs.
And no one will be needed to produce any of that. There won't be a need for retail space to sell any of that stuff. There won't be a need for truck drivers to deliver another of that stuff. We won't need as much steel; there won't be a need for pipelines, storage tanks, trucks, ships, fuel related appliances, and fixtures. There won't be a need to maintain an infrastructure that will no longer be needed.
The assembly line workers will still be doing the same jobs; that doesn't create any new jobs.
What we will need is higher taxes to support people whose skillset is obsolete and no longer have jobs.
No and we didn't clutch pearls when those jobs went into the annals of history.
What 'disruptions' are you talking about?
Good old Nerm, always an empty glass, lol.
UAW should be a net zero, isn't that a good thing?
There are 273 million "registered" vehicles in the USA, 50 million in Mexico and 34 million in Canada.
The change over may take 2 decades, maybe 4 or more...
Nonsense, maybe less engine steel replaced by aluminum, net zero.
All good things for the planet
really?
Like I said, at least two decades to change over.
Look at cell phones, by your 'theory' AT&T should not exist anymore yet there are still landlines.
Eventually that infrastructure may disappear as well, over time, hurting no one.
Now try to take everyone's smart phone away and they WILL storm the castle.
GM announced yesterday that all their cars will be electric AND their facilities will be carbon neutral by 2035.
I read that. All I could think was...
We got a long way to go and a short time to get there...
It will still take years if not decades for the cars to phase into the population.
I can also see a lot of people having a lot larger electric bill.
Which will eventually require an specific environmental recycling operation such as we currently have
for batteries and tvs
Oct 2 2020, Ford committed to sell only EV's in California by 2035.
The future is coming.
Capitalism at it's finest
Short answer is yes, but it currently costs me about $35.00 to fill up and go 500 miles = 15 cents per mile
bottom line is that it will be cheaper than the subsidized fuel rates. If big oil loses their subsidies, ( and they will )
when gas rises to $7.00 a gallon, electric will just be that much more attractive.
On top of that, battery technology is fierce and producing better and better batteries with longer and longer ranges.
I think when we plug in the cars we should call it, jacking in.
I am going to jack in my car....
I can see an industry cropping up to retrofit existing cars to hybrids until charging stations are more readily available and rural areas can catch up.
But if we don’t join the paris accord how will we pay for countries that can afford to pay their own way?
I much prefer to be part of it a) for our global image, and b) because it is never a bad thing to have set goals to work towards.
But regardless of whether we are in it or not, a majority of Americans acknowledge our need to move away from fossil fuels for a variety of reasons. One being climate change, another being the fact that the industry itself is filthy and very destructive for an environmental standpoint, renewable energy has become as cheap or cheaper (and that trend is accelerating) than fossil fuels, and for the simple fact that people generally do not like breathing in the byproduct of fossil fuels.
The sooner we dump them the better IMO.