The US is responsible for 45% of global carbon emissions
By on Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
The US is responsible for 45% of global carbon emissions
from automobiles even though Americans make up just 5% of the world’s population, according to a new report by Environmental Defense.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
But, but, but…Rush Limabaugh says we’re the most non-polluting country on earth! Right on the radio!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pmWell, Daahhhh!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:33 pmWhy should we care about the rest of the world? We’re Americans. /sarcasm
June 29th, 2006 at 12:33 pmYep, but young Seixon will say otherwise in a little while on here > lol.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmInteresting, when you consider China and India that our percentage of carbon emission would be that high. Whodathunkit?
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
June 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#4 Is Seixon young? I thought he was just bumbling and easily-deceived.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pmLucky for us carbon emissions have absolutely no consequence, as far as we know. We call it life ;)
What we need is a cuddly carbon mascot who can appeal to kids, “Don’t let the environmentalists kill me with emission controls!”
Or a catchy slogan: Feed the trees, burn oil.
Or my favorite from Bush: protecting the environment will wreck the economy.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:41 pmAre we emitting too much carbon? Oh well, I suppose the environment can take one more for the team.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pmNo surprise, but I’m sure the Right will work themselves up into a real frenzy of denial over this one.
sEXXON is only 22-23. He just graduated from college. He’s a more uptight version of squeegeboo. Young, naive and not one clue about what they are saying.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pmYep, but young Seixon will say otherwise in a little while on here > lol.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:44 pmComment by Jay Randal
Good one. :)
Did anyone notice that it was this article in is the Washington Post
So, now and forever, I don’t want to hear another claim that the global warming is an invention by liberals.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmUnbelievable…I was trying to contact TP in order to ask them about what you said to me (sort of) about TP forbidding or banning posts about 9/11 theories (besides me being foolish). I have not received an answer. Would you know why is this? I asked you before but you were gone.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:51 pmPost 9 > Seixon is 24 and he says he just finished college this spring in Norway > He is a graduate now! Oh if only I was 24 again > I loved to travel to far off places back then and I was full of energy to hike up the tallest of mountains! Even today if I was in Norway I would want to see all its beauty, and NOT hang out on TP trying to prove like Seixon does that global warming is bogus and Gore is a fraud?!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pmPost 12 Juan > TP does not want 9/11 stuff on threads about other subjects > TP has had a couple threads in the past on 9/11 and everything was allowed to be posted about possible conspiracies on them! If you post that stuff on this thread, then Judd most likely will delete it!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:56 pm# 12 Juan C(lown)
Haven’t you noticed?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pmUnbelievable is NEVER gone.
#14 OK. Sorry.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmJuan,
I don’t know the full extent of TP’s comments on the Inside Job Conspiracy Theory, as I’ve been told most of them by observation (posts being delted) and posters who’ve been around longer than I have that they do not condone it and will delete posts about it
In my own words, as I do not want to speak for them, basically, it’s a hypothesis that is based on a lot of heresay and not many facts. Several times I’ve spoken to the architectural side of the theory, how the Inside Job is simply offering something that is unrealistic and has no validation. That the towers and surrounding buildings have plausible reasons for collapse simply with the two planes crashing into them.
Plus, it goes to a level of extremes. The Bush Administration might not have done anything to prevet 9/11, but saying they were involved in planning it is really very extreme, and highly improbable. Very few people buy into it, and I could understand why TP wouldn’t want to be associated with speculation and unsubstantiated conjecture. Real journalism requires proof, hinges on facts and is neutral. And the Inside Job hypothesis has and is none of those things.
Not to knock you, but it’s a cult. They say things that sound good on thr surface, but have no substance. Much like the Moon Landing Hoax Theorists.
Hope that helps.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmFrom the article:
from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Now 314 tons divided by 130,000,000 tons means that the U.S. is producing 0.000002% of the planets CO2 in one year, right?
Why is this important again?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pm# 18. Read down the page a bit more on the page you linked to:
June 29th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Real journalism requires proof, hinges on facts and is neutral.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pmComment by Unbelievable
I got it. But i dont find neutrality in deleting posts you dont agree with or real journalism in trying to dismiss valid questions about 9/11. Anyway, thank you very much.
Nut Wrench,
Your math is off.
You have to divide the total of all CO2 emissions into each of those numbers separately to get the actual percentages.
Dividing one into the other only gives you the percent they have in relation to the other.
Also – one is metric tons and teh other is just tons. HAve to find a common variable as well.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:22 pmTry quoting the entire paragraph from your link NutWrench.
Emphasis added.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:23 pmOops sorry JJ beat me to it. That’ll teach me not to refresh before posting.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pmUnbelievable > Seixon is on the thread above this one, but has not noticed this one yet?
As for 9/11 stuff > Judd has basically said he does NOT want it discussed on threads about other subjects like this one, but when he has posted a thread dealing with it anything can then be discussed about it! Since NO real investigation was done on 9/11, then that fueled conspiracy opinions! Enough said on this subject or it gets deleted!
June 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pmI got it. But i dont find neutrality in deleting posts you dont agree with or real journalism in trying to dismiss valid questions about 9/11. Anyway, thank you very much.
Comment by Juan C — June 29, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Would be more like the NYT not printing an article that it finds it cannot support.
TP is also privately owned. They also say in their terms of agreement that they can deleted posts at tehir discretion.
I just think they don’t want to be associated with the hypothesis, frankly, because it makes them look less credible since it’s just a couple steps away from alien abductions… Sorry, but atleast now that you know they don’t like it, you won’t waste your time posting it? I’m sure there are other sites out there who do address it.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:28 pmWell both articles can’t right. It’s either 314 tons or 22 billion tons.
As it turns out, the volcano link mentions “released carbons” when they cite their 22 billion tons figure. They also state that “released carbons” are not the as CO2 gas. The Washington post article is clearly talking about carbon dioxide GAS, not “released carbons” when they mentioned their 314 tons figure.
The volcano link I provided earlier is also talking about 130 million tons of carbon dioxide GAS not “released carbons” so I don’t don’t see how the Post arrived at their “45%” figure. 0.000002% doesn’t come anywhere close to 45% of anything, which is why I think the Post article is misleading.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:38 pmIt is not just about CO2. It is also about methane:
Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential over 100 years of 23 (IPCC Third Assessment Report) i.e. when averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.
Now, it is the principal component of natural gas (NG). The greatest NG reservoirs are under Russia (Syberia). The next step after oil gets a lot more expensive is NG. What then, invade Russia? I really dont think so.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pmAnd NutWrench, you really believe that the most industrialized country in the world, home of 5% of the human population on Earth only produces the 0.000002% of the CO2 caused by humans? How so? Wasn’t the talking point of the Republicans that comply with the Kyoto Treaty would be too costly for the USA, because many of the factories in the USA have outdated technology? If the technology is outdated, from where comes such a tiny% of CO2 emissions? Isn’t older technology more pollutant than newer one? Your own post discredits itself.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pm0.000002% doesn’t come anywhere close to 45% of anything, which is why I think the Post article is misleading.
Comment by NutWrench — June 29, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Your math is wrong. I even explained why in my post above that you can’t divide it that way.
You can’t use the volcano number and the human number together. You have to use total CO2 with each individually to get the right percentage.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#29
What I believe isn’t the issue. The facts take care of themselves. I’ve already cited the necessary articles. Do the math, not the politics.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:08 pmBush knows that by NOT cutting emmisions Millions of people will die in the tropics and desert areas – Thats His Plan – Easy to read through Bush
June 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pmnutwrench, you must be a kid because your math skills can’t possibly have been good enough to graduate. or do you live in texas?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pmSo we’re winning right? Since when has winning been a bad thing.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmNutWrench, you are comparing apples and oranges. But I think that could be because the article is poorly written and even includes a giant mistake (leaving off “million”). Don’t blame the science for the Washington Post’s poor reporting.
The Environmental Defense report is well done and it’s math is good. They are only examing CO2 emissions from light vehicles. Which is where they demonstrate despite having 5% of the world population we contribute 45% of the CO2 emissions from light vehicles.
Here’s the pdf file of the report.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pm#31 What facts, Nutwrench?
The fact that you have made a mistake calculating percentages? Sorry, but you must do the math. And the article yourself posted says that the CO2 emitted by human activities is 24 billions of tons versus 145-255 million tons caused by volcanoes all around the world.
Looks very significative for me. The eruption of only a volcano, the Krakatoa, in the 19th Century, caused a great deal of pollution, demonstrated by the fact that, for months, the sky of a great region of the ocean was full of clouds and the dawns and dusks looked funny, due to the immense quantity of gaseous vapors and particles in the air.
Now, the study says that the pollution caused by humans is several orders of magnitude that the one of ALL THE VOLCANOES IN THE EARTH COMBINED. Sorry, but this is enough to demonstrate that it is BAD.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pmOK, the WaPo article makes a couple of mistakes. WaPo reads:
But the Environmental Defense website says:
The WaPo article states:
But the Environmental Defense report says:
So the Washington Post gets it wrong. See the figure on page 12 of the report for the breakdown:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5301_Globalwarmingontheroad.pdf
Think Progress, you should change your headline for this post. Instead of “The US is responsible for 45% of global carbon emissions”, it should be, “The US is responsible for 45% of global automotive carbon emissions”
Our emissions are probably closer to 25%, as this Union of Concerned Scientists web page suggests:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
June 29th, 2006 at 2:50 pmFrom last night’s Scarborough Country:
Stossel accurately and comically responded:
“They are much more skeptical, but the alarmists always get the news. I`ve covered this over the years. Killer bees were going to get us, SARS, anthrax, mad cow disease, saccharin, Nutrasweet, scares one after the other. Cell phones are going to give you brain cancer. Everyone was convinced about that. We just like to be scared. It`s why we go to horror movies and now we believe Al Gore and global warming.â€
This is but one more thing the environmentalist whackos are trying to convince us of. Sorry, just not buying it.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pmStossel accurately and comically responded
Randy– At least Think Progress had the Washington Post to back them up. Stossel has nothing to back him up.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pm36: Says the troll that thought all cars together only expell 314 tons of CO2.
I never said that, and neither did the Washington Post. Here’s what the Washington Post said:
I don’t care about this issue one way or another but apparently YOU care enough about it to make a strawman argument for it and to generally be a jerk about it. If you have a problem with the accuracy of the Washington Posts figures then take it up with them.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThank you JJ (post #38) for making the point I was trying to make, but much better than I could.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmWe just like to be scared. It`s why we go to horror movies and now we believe Al Gore and global warming.â€
This is but one more thing the environmentalist whackos are trying to convince us of. Sorry, just not buying it.
Comment by Randy — June 29,
One urine-stained cultist quoting another. You thoroughly sucked up that “imminent threat,” bullshit though, didn’t you Randy? Found Osama yet? What are you doing wasting time here, when Osama could be getting ready to attack in Afghanistan? Enlist now, tough guy.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJJ
My point is:
I’m that Stossel could provide plenty of evidence to contradict everything in Gore’s movie but I’m sure with each one of the scares he mentioned, there was ample evidence for both sides, its just who do you want to believe. The jury is still out, way out on whether we causing global warming. For that matter, global warming may not be a concrete fact either. But if Al Gore wants to run for President as the official global warming candidate, he’s got my support!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:12 pmits just who do you want to believe.
Well, as they say, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. I’m afraid the facts aren’t on Stossel’s side. He should do some reading before he makes such blanket statements.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pmNo the jury isn’t out. Scientists agree global warming is real, is occurring now and we are the major cause of it. No doubt among scientiests. No debate among scientists.
If thousands of doctors diagnosed you with liver cancer and John Stossel said you just needed a vitamin B shot that isn’t debate. Thats Stossel not being qualified or even competent enough to know what he is talking about.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pmRemember, the first sentence of the NAS panel Bush set up to study the problem in 2001 said:
June 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
[...] take that rest of the world [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pm“314 metric tons” is in error by SIX orders of magnitude, and NutWrench takes this number seriously? As for that “0.000002%” blunder, yikes!
John Stossel knows almost as much about science as Seixon. People who get their information from either of them probably can’t be helped.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pmGood point Randy. It IS a matter of who you want to believe, John Stossel or the world’s top climate scientists.
Of course when it comes to hard choices, people often want to believe the easy choice is the right one.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pm#41: You like to stick with the 314 metric tons because it fits your world view, even though it’s quite possible to unequivocally show that there is no way that this number is right, by any number of methods. First, let’s use the quote in question: 314 metric tons / 50,000 miles of train = 14 lbs. per mile of train. Last time I lifted a mile-long coal train, I found that it weighed more than 14 lbs.
Or try this: burning one gallon of gas yields just under 20 lbs of CO2 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html). 10k miles/year @ 25 MPG means 400 gallons consumed and 7800 lbs of CO2 created, or 3.6 metric tons. So you need 88 cars like that to get 314 metric tons per year. There are over 100M cars in the US, not 88. QED.
So, the situation remains: your central argument that volcanic sources of CO2 are much larger than human sources was invalidated by your own source, which does indeed quote figures for CO2 gas (BTW, carbon makes up about 25% of the mass of CO2, so to compare tons of carbon released (the carbon part of CO2) to tons of CO2, divide the latter by four).
So, the situation remains that you are completely 100% incorrect, and the fact that you continue to argue your point by hiding behind a typo and trying to obscure the argument (the released carbons vs. CO2 thing- see prev paragraph) indicates that you are intellectually dishonest.
It also remains true that your reading comprehension is poor. You say, “Well both articles can’t right. It’s either 314 tons or 22 billion tons.” Yes, because the 314 (MILLION) refers to US CARS AND TRUCKS, and the 22 billion is GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES. They refer to DIFFERENT THINGS, and those both can be right (aside from the MILLIONS omission). For the record, I can’t find a source that confirms the 314 million tons data point (I think its higher), but that doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong.
So the situation remains that you are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. If you would like to argue whether CO2 emissions matter, you will have to find a different argument; you are in firm ‘wackaloon’ territory here, where your position is so readily invalidated that it is embarrassing.
If you want to question CO2 and global warming, fine. But please find a shred of fact to support your position. Pinning your argument on an obvious mistake is f-ing stupid.
So: screw off.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:35 pmBy the way, this article snippet is misleading.
The 45% figure refers to the emissions due to US automakers vs other automakers. Who cares. This is a function of market share, fuel economy, and vehicle miles traveled. As US automaker market share continues to decline, its share of global CO2 emissions will decline, too. Does that mean the US automakers are doing a good job?
If the point is that US automakers make less efficient vehicles, talk about fuel economy, not global CO2 emissions share.
What matters is global CO2 emissions and methane emissions, from all sources.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:41 pm…no worries mates…
…right wing Repulsivescum al Cracker Bushite TRAITOR James Inhofe heads the senate committee to tackle this problem…
…disregard any previous comments he may have made…
…characterizing the “environmental crisis” as a “joke”…
…right wing conservative “Dim-o-crat”/Repulsivescum TRAITORS…
…creating reality since Fox, SCOTUS and Diebold…
…ushered in a new phase of Bushite “democracy”…
…of al Cracker TRAITORS, by al Cracker TRAITORS, and for al Cracker TRAITORS…
…whose “just” powers are derived by consent of the criminal capitalist corporations…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:49 pmNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:55 amWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 6:33 amLavera
Attitude is the way you mentally look at the world around you. It is how you view your environment and your future. It is the focus you develop toward life itself.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:20 amAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 14th, 2009 at 12:06 pmShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 15th, 2009 at 4:53 am