Euro countries went up as well. The US dropped the most. I wasn't talking about Thailand. www.thenewamerican.com/.../30381-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-down-other-countries-up
Okay I'll do that. "Germany and France lagged behind with their emissions rising by 0.1 and two percent, respectively."
1. Cite an actual less subjective (that source screams NOT OBJECTIVE IN ANY WAY)2. You were talking about 'Paris Agreement country'. You didn't mention any country nor Europe, Thailand was just an example. Obviously. 3. If we are supposed to believe politifact (https://www. politifact. com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/) then the drop was in fact under Obama's presidency due to a lag in the data. Apparently according to EIA data (with a bit more recent data) the decline under Trump was the slowest in years. That implies that firms were already decreasing (no credit to Trump) but under Trump they were decreasing emissions less (credit to Trump). And EIA estimates that emissions in the USA will go up for the next coming years.
And if we're adding a nice mediabiasfactcheck then politifact is far higher at factual reporting and has less of a bias than the New American
1. I'll do what I want.2. I said "Paris Agreement Countries" meaning all countries in the agreement.3. I heard it on Bloomberg radio. There's lots of sites reporting it.It's not really about Trump, but people love to give credit, good or bad, to leaders.Here's more sources for youwww.reuters.com/.../u-s-greenhouse-emissions-fell-in-2017-as-coal-plants-shut-idUSKCN1MR2J4breakingenergy.com/.../
1. Sure you can do what you want. Citing a biased source is just stupid and doesn't help your point. 2. There are way too many differences between countries within the Paris Agreement. No point in calling them in general, that's just ignorant.Sources essentially say the same thing as last one. Already countered with source I provided.
That was the first source on google. Sorry it's not good enough for you. Look into it. It's known at this point although I'm sure it's not reported in Europe."Paris Agreement Countries" = all of the countries. I'm even a bit skeptical, but that's what I heard on the radio. Regardless, the US is down while Europe is up.The articles said what I said.
Can I just point out that the article you link to says: "According to BP’s annual energy statistics, over the same time period in which U. S. emissions fell by 2.7 percent, the European Union’s emissions are up by 1.5 percent, with Spain accounting for 44 percent of that increase."But the link to BP's stats actually says (about 2017): "Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years. "I suspect they cherry picked a time interval to make the US look good. (2006-2016 was -1.2% p. a. for the US, -1.5% for Europe: www.bp.com/.../...s-review-2018-co2-emissions.pdf)
I believe I heard on bloomberg that the US had the lowest emissions drop. I just found it ironic due to hearing people upset about the US leaving the paris agreement due to not wanting to subsidize paying for China solar panels. We'll leave that to the Europeans.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I know. The point is, we leave the paris agreement and our emissions go down while yours.. go up. It seems too ironic to me. Europe has lots of access to natural gas from Russia and Norway.Beyond that, liberals in the US are generally against fracking for natural gas. They prefer default oil from Canada or the middle east or maybe they want to close their eyes and imagine oil appears without drilling. Also, they are very against nuclear power which is obviously the cleanest.
Yeah it makes a fun headline but it does not mean you are doing a good/better job than the countries in the Paris Climate accord.If we look at Germany for example its already burning twice as much natural gas as coal not to mention its investments in solar and wind. As for fixing the climate just switching to natural gas will not be enough and fracking also causes other issues such as instabilities underground or polluted ground water.As for Russia supplying Europe natural gas that is a huge national security problem.
We'll I know that. That isn't what I claimed though. I just noticed the irony of all of this. I understand what fracking does. Drilling causes the same issues.I took meteorology 10 years ago and the attitude at the time within the book was that it likely won't matter what humans do. I mean if we 100% stopped extracting carbon out of the earth, it would have been POSSIBLE to stop climate change, but in the real world, you know countries weren't going to do that. I'm all for clean energy, but realistically we are most certainly too late.Yep Europe (especially Germany) seems to be reliant on Russia. They can't make Russia too mad. Poland may have 1/2 a testicle since it started importing natural gas from the US. I'm not sure what Germany issue is.
Yeah its already too late to stop global warming. At this point its just a question of limiting the damages.As for Germany they can't import enough natural gas from USA nor would it make sense to invest so much into something that you are aiming to replace anyway. Every nation on earth is faced with the very real problem of increasing energy demands and the need to simultaneously replace the very backbone of their energy production.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!