USA Cuts 'Global Warming' Gases Faster Than Anyone, Media Ignores It

[Hydrogen]

Global Warming: When the U.S. announced last year it would withdraw from the job-killing Paris Climate Accords, it was treated by the media as a climate-change disaster. But don't worry: The U.S. is slashing output of greenhouse gases all on its own.

The latest report from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the emission of so-called greenhouse gases declined by 2% in 2016 from 2015 and 11% from 2005. No major industrial economy on Earth has made as much progress as the U.S.

And no, we're not claiming this as a victory for Donald Trump or anyone else in government. It's due to fracking and the replacement of high-CO2 fuels like coal with far-cleaner natural gas.

That trend can bee seen in another data series, which shows that emissions in the electric power sector plunged 25% since 2005, an unprecedented amount.

"This report confirms the president's critics are wrong again: one-size-fits-all regulations like the Clean Power Plan or misguided international agreements like the Paris Accords are not the solution," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "The U.S. has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than any country on Earth over the last decade."

He added: "American ingenuity and technological breakthroughs, not top-down government mandates, have made the U.S. the world leader in achieving energy dominance while reducing emissions — one of the great environmental successes of our time."

Sounds almost too good to be true, but it is. Pruitt is right.

Meanwhile, among the other 194 countries that signed the Paris Accords to reduce their greenhouse gas output, emissions continue to rise. Many of these countries have promoted foolish policies, such as shutting down nuclear power plants, that actually make their skies dirtier, not cleaner.

By forcing a switch to "renewables" like wind and solar power, these countries had hoped to become clean-energy powerhouses. Instead, to make up for the growing energy shortages, higher cost and unreliability of renewables, they've had to rely on using even more coal for their energy — entirely foreseeable and avoidable problems that somehow the extreme green leaders of these nations neither foresaw nor avoided.

Still, if you're hoping to read about the U.S.' tremendous success in the mainstream media, good luck. Most of the media have entirely bought the global warming doomsday scenarios pushed by globalist leaders of a socialist bent, who see in climate change an opportunity to extend government's reach into every aspect of human life.

By focusing as they should on creating more abundant and cheaper energy, American companies are reducing our greenhouse gas output without being ordered to do so by dictatorial green bureaucrats. That's a lesson the rest of the world could learn from. Our friends in the U.S. media, too.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-cuts-global-warming-gases-faster-than-anyone-else-but-media-ignore-it/

Different perspective. Tried to bold the best parts but tbh the whole thing is worth reading.

This might sound counter intuitive but this claims policies like the Paris Accords increase reliance on coal via closing down nuclear power plants and that the USA will decrease carbon emissions more than any nation on earth simply by shifting towards natural gas production over the last decade or so.

It is not often these types of counter culture / different perspective pieces are published. With the exception of a few outliers, the media typically presents a united front to the world and pretends there is only "one rational view" on every topic. The recent outbreak of pieces like this one which break the mold and challenge the status quo could be considered significant within the grand scheme of things.

[Arabella.Theo]

Slightly off topic but they've also failed to mention the mediation America done to bring the south nd north of Korea together. I think people are so blinded by their tribalism that they cant see good when it is staring them in the face. This is by no means an endorsement for the USAs actions but credit where credit is due.

[sorrysteve1]

One year of reduction in green house gas emissions is not enough. The Paris agreement is a many year long commitment to reduce the levels of harmful gases in order to lower the rate at which the planet is warming. Quite clearly the USA do not feel they are able or willing to commit to such an extensive reduction over time and that is what is needed in the eyes of many experts to reduce the decline of our atmosphere. While they may deserve merit for their actions in one year, this problem we are facing has not been brought upon us in such a short time span as a year, nor will it be resolved by 1 year of reductions.

[stompix]

The reduction in percentage means nothing when the difference in the initial number is that huge.

For example this is the gas emission statistics per capita during 1990 -2005:

United States          23.23      19.9
Germany                14.59     11.0
Japan                         9.4   10.55
United Kingdom        12.9     8.45

So even if the US has cut its emissions by "11% from 2005"  , that's 11% in 13 years they are still going to need 91 years to reach the level the UK is now.
 

[LoyceV]

The reduction in percentage means nothing when the difference in the initial number is that huge.

For example this is the gas emission statistics per capita during 1990 -2005:

United States          23.23      19.9
Germany                14.59     11.0
Japan                         9.4   10.55
United Kingdom        12.9     8.45

Why would "per capita" be a valid measurement? Natural CO₂ absorption has nothing to do with the number of humans. I can think of many different units that make much more sense: anthropogenic CO2 emission per tree for example, per unit of surface, or per km² of forest destroyed in the past 500 years.
Without doing the math, I'm pretty sure the US would score better on those three categories than Germany, Japan and the UK.

Using "per capita" units gives the false incentive as if doubling the population would be okay as long as the CO₂ emission per person goes up with less than 100%. That's a bad approach, global warming doesn't depend on emissions per person, only total emissions count.

[Harlot]

So a lesser production of emissions means that U.S. can go all out producing more than ever? Even if they have produced lesser pollution they are still one of the 2 (the other one is China) countries producing more than half of the World's gas emissions which is really big. And having less jobs for their country cannot justify them skipping or cancelling the agreement which they co-signed and agreed upon by other countries. And mind you Trump will cut ties as early as they can , which China isn't even planning to do so. This shows a selfish act of an already developed country.

[stompix]

The reduction in percentage means nothing when the difference in the initial number is that huge.

For example this is the gas emission statistics per capita during 1990 -2005:

United States          23.23      19.9
Germany                14.59     11.0
Japan                         9.4   10.55
United Kingdom        12.9     8.45

Why would "per capita" be a valid measurement? Natural CO₂ absorption has nothing to do with the number of humans. I can think of many different units that make much more sense: anthropogenic CO2 emission per tree for example, per unit of surface, or per km² of forest destroyed in the past 500 years.
Without doing the math, I'm pretty sure the US would score better on those three categories than Germany, Japan and the UK.

Using "per capita" units gives the false incentive as if doubling the population would be okay as long as the CO₂ emission per person goes up with less than 100%. That's a bad approach, global warming doesn't depend on emissions per person, only total emissions count.

Because that was the entire point of the opening posts...percentages.
That the US has reduced the most in percentage...but in reality in means nothing.
A fat man can improve his 100 meters time from 2 minutes to 30 seconds, a real athlete can barely do 1 second, but the fat guy is not going to get a medal.

Deforestation?

in 1630 the area of forest land that would become
the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46
percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest
land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or
34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land.

120 million hectares destroyed is equal to 1.2 million km² , that's the size of France and Germany glued toghether

So we should rank this based on area? What is fair in that ? Do you want to compete with Russia on this?
Mongolia has a density per km² of 1.7, compared to the US at 33.
They should be allowed to burn 20 times as much coal, right?
And people in Monaco or Gibraltar should not be allowed to even fart  

Don't get me wrong, I agree that this whole CO₂ emission is getting ridiculous and slowly turning into madness but my point was strictly about their claim of being an example of green technology.

[jseverson]

It is not often these types of counter culture / different perspective pieces are published. With the exception of a few outliers, the media typically presents a united front to the world and pretends there is only "one rational view" on every topic. The recent outbreak of pieces like this one which break the mold and challenge the status quo could be considered significant within the grand scheme of things.

I hate to rain on this parade but I don't think this piece breaks the mold at all. IBD has very conservative political stances, and glancing at their articles make it seem like they have an agenda versus climate change and global warming belief in general. They're free to question whatever they want to question, of course, but to say they're right leaning is more accurate than saying they're challenging the status quo in my opinion.

As for the article itself, let's not forget that the Paris Agreement was signed just a measly two years ago. Despite where you stand on the issue, I think it's way too early to dismiss the advantages that it can bring, considering:

The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

...there are still 82 years left in this century. I'd also like to note that the end goal for the agreement is to keep global temperatures from rising to the intended target, not necessarily cut down more emissions than other countries. It's not a race, it's about meeting a quota.

What I'm truly interested in is whether or not this can affect Bitcoin mining regulations globally. I know its consumption is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it's an easy target for regulators.