US emissions have declined 18% since 2005.

Look at Asia.

Both sides of the equation need to be solved.

The US is still one of the leading CO2 emitters, both per capita and in absolute terms. And for cumulative past emissions, it's not even close.

The expectation is not a mere 18% decrease but something closer to halving emissions just to be on a per capita level comparable to the EU or China.

It doesn't mean China doesn't need to make efforts. China's emissions are yet to be stabilized.

But the US need to make their share, and at least honor and (re-)ratify past climate agreements, if anything to dampen the economic arms race between China and the US.

	▲	spwa4 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Both sides of the equation need to be solved. Sorry, but, at this point ... why? Oil will run out before 2070 (read a bit of peak oil talk, oil running out doesn't mean zero oil pumped up, it means zero used for transport. There will still be reasons to dig up a little bit of oil). The strongest climate agreement was essentially status-quo in 2050, which now seems unlikely to actually happen, for 2 different reasons. First, the very very bad news: the most recent climate agreement was less ambitious (because Russia, China, India and essentially all of Africa refused, even more than the US did under Trump). The secretary general of the UN got accused of joining oil trade deal meetings at the climate conference in Azerbaijan. At this point, a political solution is just not going to happen, nobody wants to make it happen. The other side of the equation, oil producers, Russia, Saudi Arabia refused to even discuss any kind of limits AT ALL, an even more extreme position than the US. So there's no political options there either. What the EU decides to do or not do is a rounding error, every European country except Russia (insofar they're European) just can't do anything, and even the US matters less and less. But the good news: if you look at production quotas and solar replacement, ie. the economics of oil, oil should run out sooner (because the maximum price anyone will pay will drop, but of course same caveat, run out does not mean 0) than the agreement puts in place. So why do anything at this point? God, so to speak, will interfere. By that I mean digging up oil will become difficult/expensive while solar and batteries becomes cheaper, which will result in a faster drop in oil use than actually respecting the most recent agreement. So, no, nothing needs to happen. And now we are in the situation we are already in for 50+ years: You want to help climate change? Go study chemistry. Find new energy conversions that work. Find new battery chemistry that works better. Find a way to carry electrical energy with 10x the density of the best batteries (so even militaries have zero reason to get away from oil, ie. this is the only way to convince China and India to use less oil). THAT will accelerate oil's decline. Politically? There is no reason here whatsoever for political change in Europe. And while I want Trump gone, so far he's by far the politician pushing the hardest for solar, despite his rhetoric.

▲

nyc640 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, let's look at "Asia" (as if that's some meaningful grouping in this context when the countries are so different culturally, geographically, and economically).

Since 2005, a huge amount of US manufacturing and resource processing (both large emitters) have been outsourced (largely to Asia, and more specifically China). Our economy doesn't function without these imported emissions, yet they don't count as "US emissions". Even excluding these emissions, the US makes up 4% of the world population and emits 13% of world emissions. Asia makes up 60% of the world's population and emits 52% (more than 3x less per-capita than the US). If you actually consider that the countries in Asia are vastly diverse, you'll find the large majority of these emissions are from China (from said manufacturing and resource processing), and India for example emits far less than its share of the population.

This also completely ignores that the effects of warming are from cumulative emissions (not just point-in-time emissions) because CO2 doesn't just disappear every year. As a share of historical emissions, Europe comes off far worse than Asia per capita, and the US even worse than Europe.

Even despite this, at least China (and the rest of Asia to a lesser extent) is investing in clean energy. China produces > 80% of the world's solar panels and > 70% of the world's lithium batteries. Meanwhile, in the US the administration is doubling down on subsidies for fossil fuels and issuing stop-work orders on renewable energy projects already under construction.

And because I know I have to give this disclaimer these days: I am no apologist for everything else wrong with China and their authoritarian government. But I can't bear this attitude of absolving ourselves of blame for climate change because some other continent has a bigger number than us.

	▲	slashdev 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The population in the US has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. I think it's doing a good job and merely needs to continue that trajectory. The Trump administration is making some poor decisions there, but won't last much longer, it matters more if that's a long-term Republican position or merely an aberation.

▲

NegativeLatency a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You mean the place where we buy all our crap from?

▲

folkrav 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Asia does about 50% the global emissions while having 60% of the world's population. The US alone does about 12% being 5% of global population.

US approaches 15t/CO2 per capita. Every single country in Asia is under 9t, China and India included. This is despite the US having outsourced most of its heavy manufacturing to, of course, Asia.

Blaming Asia alone and refusing any responsibility is a massive cop out.

	▲	slashdev 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Per capita is rather pointless when talking about climate change, but yes, it doesn't absolve responsibility. You'll note that's not what I said, just that the US is doing well at reducing CO2 emissions. The population has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. That's a good job. US manufacturing has not decreased either, it has just not increased while offshoring elsewhere. So for the most part that decrease in CO2 is not simply moving the problem elsewhere.

▲

pvaldes 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But the sins of out grandgrandpas haven't vanished, and still will need to be paid.

	▲	slashdev 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's less an issue than the new emissions going forward from Asia and Africa. We can't very well tell them to stay poor. They're going to increase their energy usage and they're right to do so. Hopefully renewables and EVs are competitive enough to reduce the impact of the rest of the world developing to Western levels. Which they may well, thanks to China and Elon Musk's Tesla for jump starting that transition.

▲

Hikikomori 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

China built more solar in 2025 than the US has in total. Meanwhile trump ripping up wind and solar builds.

	▲	slashdev 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		China also built more coal than the US has in total. Don't forget the scale is different there. But yes, it's sad to see America about face on climate change under Trump.