| ▲ | myrmidon 3 hours ago |
| Outsourced manufacturing is much less of a factor than people typically assume: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-e... US numbers are insanely high because cheap hydrocarbons are locally available (=> bad incentives) and everyone is wealthy (that correlation is very strong; just compare Luxembourg, which is much wealthier and more polluting than surrounding nations) and also population density is rather low so more energy wasted for transport. |
|
| ▲ | flakeoil 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > that correlation is very strong; just compare Luxembourg, which is much wealthier and more polluting than surrounding nations Well, your theory does not hold at all if you look at Switzerland which pollutes 1/4 of the US per capita. CO2 pollution is not and does not have to be correlated with standard of living. |
| |
| ▲ | myrmidon 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reality is obviously more complex, and many countries have already managed to somewhat decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions (very good!), but as a crude approximation: More money => everyone gets more stuff => more CO2 emissions (producing and running that stuff). If you want meaningful CO2/capita comparisons, you also have to be very careful with countries that get ("free") hydro power opportunities for electricity because that distorts the picture massively (same for e.g. Norway). Big producers of hydrocarbons, on the other hand (like the US) have to work hard to resist the allure of cheap & convenient fossils. Switzerland is so far ahead in this comparison because they get a lot of CO2-free hydroelectricity (>50%), have to import most hydrocarbons (=> incentive against) and also save massively on transportation because density is much higher. | | |
| ▲ | gwerbin an hour ago | parent [-] | | How much of that "decoupling" is actually just "exporting"? Not being glib or dismissive, I think it's an important distinction and I don't know enough about Europe to know how the two compare. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gwerbin an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There are so many bad incentives all over the place in the USA, and it's not so much that cheap hydrocarbons create them as it fails to prevent them. Consider the gradual takeover of SUVs on the roads (many which to be fair are probably about as efficient as sedans were 20 years ago, albeit more expensive in real terms and significantly more dangerous for pedestrians), or the heavy reliance on trucking rather than rail for heavy freight transportation between logistics hubs, or the heavy reliance on air for long-distance travel due to having literally zero high-speed rail, or the fear of nuclear power, or the overt political opposition to green energy. |
| |
| ▲ | sarchertech an hour ago | parent [-] | | The rest of that is true but the US moves a much higher percentage of its freight by rail than almost any large developed country. Just in comparison to Europe “46 percent of European freight goes by truck while only 11 percent goes by rail, while in the United States more than 40 percent goes by rail while just 30 percent goes on the highway." This is in ton-miles, so it’s the metric most directly relevant to emissions. | | |
|
