Why do people think nothing is being done in the USA to grduce green house gasses?

Question

Reducing green house gasses is a multibillion dollar business in the USA. From government subsidizes to power corporations to build more wind towers, to venture capitalist investing billions into new technology, to corporations upgrading old equipment to newer technology that reduces power consumption while making a better and more consistent product, the USA is taking the lead in reducing co2 emissions.

The effects are evident. Not long ago, the USA dropped off the list of top polluters. Now China is the leader of green house gas production. This was done from using new technology that was developed over the years.

So why do people insist that the USA is "doing nothing" to reduce ghg's? Is it because we as Americans put more faith in individuals to take action while true believers demand that the government use it's full force to make people do what they think is best?

Answer 1

Because we're the world's scapegoat.

Answer 2

I agree the U.S. is unfairly blamed. Using the source, I find that the following nations have changed greenhouse gas emissions by the following percentages. This is between 1993 and 2003 (the earliest and latest dates in the source) although some countries are reporting 1994-2004.

Germany: 5% reduction
U.K. 2% reduction
Denmark: no change
France: 11% increase
U.S.A: 12% increase
Italy: 14% increase
Japan: 16% increase
Greece: 27% increase
Australia: 29% increase
South Africa: 30% increase
Norway: 33% increase
Brazil: 36% increase
China 37% increase
Korea: 40% increase

So it seems the U.S. is better than average and only Gremany has come anywhere near the Kyoto goal of 5% below 1990 levels. But that is at least in part because they buy lots of electricity from other countries, so they don't have to report the emissions of the generating plants as their own.

Answer 3

You are talking about greenhouse gas intensity:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/intensitygoal.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/trends.html

This is what the Bush Administration has substituted in place of reductions in net emissions. However, there is every indication that this decrease would have happened anyway:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/30/192656/23

Furthermore, as far as radiative forcing of the atmosphere, it is the net emissions of the greenhouse gases that are important, not the greenhouse gas intensity. Furthermore, if you rank the top net greenhouse gas emitters, in terms of per capita emissions the U.S. leads the pack:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_96.gif

Truthfully, doing something meaningful to reduce greenhouse gases is going to involve some pain, it's not going to happen through fortuitous declines in greenhouse gas intensity. But it will be pain we can control. The pain from unchecked climate change will be uncontrolled and likely to be far more severe than anything we would willingly submit on ourselves.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's *** whether you, or people like you, truly disbelieve anthropogenically induced climate change is happening, or whether you say the things you do for sport, or whether you are just so scared of anything that looks like it may decrease what you perceive as "freedom" that its truth becomes unthinkable. The radiative balance of the atmosphere and the climatic response will continue to obey its physics and chemistry and nothing that happens in the next 50 years would ever penetrate your thought processes to the point where you could admit a personal responsibility or having a stake in the events. But it is sad because the bad things that are going to happen, and there will be bad bad things that will happen, are in some measure preventable were we to accept that we in the industrial nations are living with lifestyles that are inherently unsustainable and were willing to modify them accordingly for the benefit of future generations.

Answer 4

Because your emissions were up 12-16% last year and you are still the biggest global emitter of co2 gas, despite being the richest country in the world, with access to the latest technology. Simple enough, no? If you want examples of how to reduce co2, look to Europe. France emits 6.2, Germany 10, Italy 8 and the USA almost 20 co2 tonnes per capita. How the US can claim leadership in this area is a bit of a joke!

Answer 5

Radicals will use any method (true or not) to attempt to gain converts. CO2 is only the latest add on. Must have given up on the others which have been so heavily impacted and catagorized in the past. Now it is CO2 that is the large culprit. Should this be factual, the first thing that would be needed to reduce its impact would be to get rid of most of the animals in Africa... The millions on millions of animals there must produce an enormous amount of CO2. So, apparently CO2 is not the problem they are trying to make it be.

This effort is only the continuation of the attack on government and industries. As kids are taught from the earlies cartoons. "Big bad corporations" and have continued that fight for many years.

Answer 6

Because of Bush's refusal to sign up to Kyoto, for short term 'national economic' reasons.

Because America is widely belived to have the highest proportion of SUVs, and a history of unneccesarily large cars.

Because America has a huge environmental footprint, 7 planet lifestyle, compared to the UK's 3 and, to clear up other's points, China's 1 planet lifestyle

Because of your infamous love of energy at any cost, Iraq, and now Biofuels (85% -145% of the carbon emissions of gas)

Because China getting to the head of the table doesn't actually mean America is emitting less carbon, it just means China is producing more. Much of which is probably down to thier US exports.

Answer 7

Because we're doing very little, particularly considering the vast amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted and continue to emit, and particularly in comparison to most European countries.

You say "the USA dropped off the list of top polluters", but we're still right behind China in greenhouse gas emissions despite having a fraction of its population. What kind of list only has 1 entry? I think you meant the singular - "the USA dropped off the list of top polluter".

Zasu - you proved my point perfectly. With the exception of tiny little Luxembourg, not a single European nation is anywhere near the USA's per capita emissions. The worst is Finland at just over half the USA's per capita emissions.

According to your final link, among developed nations Australia is worst, USA second, and Luxembourg third in per capita emissions. In case you weren't aware, Australia is not a European nation. My criticisms of the USA apply just as much to Australia, which are the only 2 nations not to ratify the Kyoto Accord. Australia's addiction to coal rivals the USA's addiction to oil.