US per capita CO2 emissions now at 1913 levels \ stacker news ~charts_and

pull down to refresh

In 1913 only 1% of Americans had indoor plumbing and electricity

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

view all related items

365 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Apr

Interesting chart

We can see that emissions dropped during the Great Depression.

Poverty is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Apr

Poverty is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions

That's your takeaway? Srsly? In 2023 only 1% had indoor plumbing and electricity. If anything the takeaway should be that it has NOT necessarily much to do with poverty/qol.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullcount 15 Apr

The chart takes a nosedive right around the time when US industry began moving to China.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Apr

No, read the source. Moving emissions to China, Mexico, Vietnam is not the reason.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 15 Apr

I don't see anything about this in the source.

There is a section where they attempt to correct for emissions from production of goods imported/exported.

But this chart doesn't attempt to correct for that...

43 sats \ 2 replies \ @nym 14 Apr

That is pretty good progress I'd say.

7 sats \ 1 reply \ @harrr 15 Apr

Progress to where?

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 18 Apr

To tax your ass over a scam.. thats the only progress

43 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr

I always wonder about these stats... His were they measuring this in the 1910s vs today. Call me sceptical of the data.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 18 Apr

Its just the carbon scam.. they have to make you comply using some fake data in order to tax your ass..

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @harrr 15 Apr

Land-use not included. What?

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @go 15 Apr

I'd wonder if they magically eliminate co2 emissions that have been "negated" by paying a carbon tax

0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Satosora 14 Apr

The EPA actually cracks down and fines companies. I believe their fines should be higher, because I remember the company I worked for just paying the fines and not fixing the problem.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @kingzing131 14 Apr

Lowering pollution but keeping the same output and profitability is definitely ideal.

But I just don't see fines will be equally fair. Some industries are more pollutant intensive and harder to reduce. And the US wants to have some of the manufacturing back, these fines and regulations ain't gonna make it easy.

The world needs to pick between outsourcing their manufacturing or allowing local pollution

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @fm 18 Apr

You know CO2 is not an air pollutant rigth?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @kingzing131 19 Apr freebie

You mean same way water isn’t a poison until you have too much of it? Never understand what’s this take as if byproducts cannot be harmful

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Apr

The EPA is out of control. An agency drunk on power

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 15 Apr

I think they are on the right track. They may seem heavy handed with fines, but they are in place so that the company takes action to fix the problems. At my company, it was crooked as shit. They didnt fix the problem and just paid the fines, or limited their emissions or didnt even report them. Its harmful for the environment, and they are just being greedy. They had the money to fix these issues.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Apr

Heavy handed for sure

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 15 Apr

deleted by author