Greenhouse gasses are not contained within the US border. I didn’t see anything in here that indicated global CO2 emission would grow based on increases in US fossil fuel production. Given the inelasticity of demand for oil and gas one could argue that greater US production which is generally cleaner would actually reduce net global emissions by displacing coal or tar sand production. US net zero in itself means nothing.
this implies the situation elsewhere in the world is less bleak than the united states, or that those things are unrelated. i think the opposite is true. places where renewable investment is needed the most—india, indonesia, nigeria, south africa, etc.—do not have the fiscal capacity to carry out an energy transition. it will be up to the united states, china, and western europe to provide the liquidity for investment in the global south. if the us can’t even pass meaningful *domestic* climate policy, it paints a pretty bleak picture.
Taking the world's largest economy (by GDP) and the world's second-highest greenhouse gas emitter and reducing its carbon emissions to zero "means nothing"?
I imagine it's challenging to get vast swathes of the US electorate engaged in this issue over the very real economic pain that the Uniparty has inflicted upon them for 40 years now. Neoliberalism's chickens are coming home to roost ...
Readers of this Chartbook should reflect on the fact the IRA was passed under budget 'Reconciliation' rules. 'Reconciliation' sidesteps the usual 60 vote requirement to invoke cloture, aka the ability to proceed with a bill to the US Senate floor with debate allowed, but time limited. That is why the 'razor thin' margin of Dem votes was able to pass the IRA. Please recall NOT ONE Republican member of the Senate or House voted to support the IRA. In other words, it was the combination Dem President, House and Senate that led to the passage of the IRA.
If a Trump win occurs this November, US voting patterns have become more 'parliamentary', and historic patterns of splitting votes--e.g. voters elect a Republican President and Dem Congress in both chambers which occurred in the past (e.g. 1956, 1968), that is far less likely to occur now. The R's are also not likely to win 60 seats in the Senate even in a Trump landslide, the number necessary to be able to invoke cloture w/out a Dem vote; but if the R's control the Senate (51-59 votes) and can get to 51, working with a Trump Administration and the R's retain the House the shoe will be on the other foot and Reconciliation can be used to pass measures.
Great analysis as always from Tooze, this time on the shape of the energy transition under alternative POTUS 46s. I wonder though: what about the possibility of permitting reform? Economics of renewables, really solar, is better and more dominant by the day. A more level economic playing field that doesn’t benefit the status quo viz a viz permitting barriers to new transmission and the like would help accelerate the energy transition.
Yes, I'm hoping wind and solar have progressed to the point where even a President Trump couldn't fuck things up. But I say let's not take the chance anyway.
Do I have this right? "At a moment when democracy is at stake" the B/H administration produced more gas and oil than the previous administration, but to save the planet we should vote for The Cackler?
As a Republican, Dan, then you must love the old, demented fool that can barely speak an English sentence and his sidekick who thinks rape is an inconvenience.
If I were voting in US elections. I would not know who to vote for. One administration is a war monger, makes excuses for the genocide in Gaza, prolongs war in Ukraine vs seeking an end to conflict by respecting Ukrainian neutrality. The other administration puts the world on a path to irreversible climate change.
What good is Western “democracy” which preselects such awful alternatives for the electorate? Each administration blames the other for failures on foreign policy and climate change policy. And so no sustained commitment is possible from the US. Same for Australia; the opposition can’t wait to follow a Trump administration in backtracking on climate change.
I once admired Western democracy. History will judge the West for its hypocrisy.
Would be interesting to see a corresponding graph plotting PER CAPITA emissions. And, as well, both data sets plotted on a log-scaled y-axis. From your graph it is evident that per capita emissions for the U.S. are about twice those of China. Both countries would benefit from adjusting their economic politicies so that their populations decline somewhat to stabilize at a lower level. Would give a heart attack, of course, to the "Growth uber Alles" folks at the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and the Cato Institute.
Superior k-12 and and college and university education systems, a more refined and fairly homogeneous culture, an ancient meritocratic system for training and producing governmental leaders and administrators, combined with "constrained" democracy, have made China the most superior system once again. As US culture continues to degenerate the anger and envy of both our political parties will have them competing as to who can crush or damage China first.
Historical climate justice, that takes into account the long CO2 free ride enjoyed by Western Europe and North America, is an aspect missing from Tooze's excellent overview. It means aiming for net zero is not enough. For these regions it means a net negative emissions target must be applied, equal to the area under the historical curve of those emissions before the "rise of China" etc., properly weighed for which free rider region was doing the most CO2 footprinting, for ex. the massive US footprint circa 1940's - 2000's.
Hence the massive fracking ramp up thru Obama-Trump-Biden is all the more egregious. Its high production cost on the world market makes it unlikely it will displace coal or tar sands (this from Canada anyway, so part of the North American footprint)
And as of 2022, the USA consumes its own production, in effect:
Both the Biden and Trump administrations have done badly on climate change. Don’t fool us in claiming the Biden carbon is the most historically significant ever. Perhaps in the US. But pales in comparison to China’s, whose carbon mitigation efforts far exceed the US even though China’s per capita emissions is far lower. The US is a bad actor on the global climate change effort. When is the EU and UK going to wake up from their blinds allegiance to the US? All are hypocrites!
What we're seeing is the fruits of "all of the above." Generous support for renewables, nothing done to restrain or reduce gas and oil production. That has been the Biden plan from the beginning, and as the article says, it's not nearly enough.
Greenhouse gasses are not contained within the US border. I didn’t see anything in here that indicated global CO2 emission would grow based on increases in US fossil fuel production. Given the inelasticity of demand for oil and gas one could argue that greater US production which is generally cleaner would actually reduce net global emissions by displacing coal or tar sand production. US net zero in itself means nothing.
this implies the situation elsewhere in the world is less bleak than the united states, or that those things are unrelated. i think the opposite is true. places where renewable investment is needed the most—india, indonesia, nigeria, south africa, etc.—do not have the fiscal capacity to carry out an energy transition. it will be up to the united states, china, and western europe to provide the liquidity for investment in the global south. if the us can’t even pass meaningful *domestic* climate policy, it paints a pretty bleak picture.
"US net zero in itself means nothing."
Taking the world's largest economy (by GDP) and the world's second-highest greenhouse gas emitter and reducing its carbon emissions to zero "means nothing"?
I imagine it's challenging to get vast swathes of the US electorate engaged in this issue over the very real economic pain that the Uniparty has inflicted upon them for 40 years now. Neoliberalism's chickens are coming home to roost ...
Readers of this Chartbook should reflect on the fact the IRA was passed under budget 'Reconciliation' rules. 'Reconciliation' sidesteps the usual 60 vote requirement to invoke cloture, aka the ability to proceed with a bill to the US Senate floor with debate allowed, but time limited. That is why the 'razor thin' margin of Dem votes was able to pass the IRA. Please recall NOT ONE Republican member of the Senate or House voted to support the IRA. In other words, it was the combination Dem President, House and Senate that led to the passage of the IRA.
If a Trump win occurs this November, US voting patterns have become more 'parliamentary', and historic patterns of splitting votes--e.g. voters elect a Republican President and Dem Congress in both chambers which occurred in the past (e.g. 1956, 1968), that is far less likely to occur now. The R's are also not likely to win 60 seats in the Senate even in a Trump landslide, the number necessary to be able to invoke cloture w/out a Dem vote; but if the R's control the Senate (51-59 votes) and can get to 51, working with a Trump Administration and the R's retain the House the shoe will be on the other foot and Reconciliation can be used to pass measures.
Great analysis as always from Tooze, this time on the shape of the energy transition under alternative POTUS 46s. I wonder though: what about the possibility of permitting reform? Economics of renewables, really solar, is better and more dominant by the day. A more level economic playing field that doesn’t benefit the status quo viz a viz permitting barriers to new transmission and the like would help accelerate the energy transition.
Yes, I'm hoping wind and solar have progressed to the point where even a President Trump couldn't fuck things up. But I say let's not take the chance anyway.
Do I have this right? "At a moment when democracy is at stake" the B/H administration produced more gas and oil than the previous administration, but to save the planet we should vote for The Cackler?
Who's The Cackler?
It's called misogyny, Dan's a Republican and they're really good at that.
Ah, hoping someone else could answer your question. No, her name is not Misogyny, but Kamala.
As a Republican, Dan, then you must love the old, demented fool that can barely speak an English sentence and his sidekick who thinks rape is an inconvenience.
I never referred to the president as an "old demented fool", but whatever.
I was referring to Trump of course. It seems you may be referring to Biden.
You know you really shouldn't have started down this road. Please, save your snark and nastiness for your facebook pals.
Got it. Why don't you tell us all how she's not really Black? Didn't you get the memo?
If I were voting in US elections. I would not know who to vote for. One administration is a war monger, makes excuses for the genocide in Gaza, prolongs war in Ukraine vs seeking an end to conflict by respecting Ukrainian neutrality. The other administration puts the world on a path to irreversible climate change.
What good is Western “democracy” which preselects such awful alternatives for the electorate? Each administration blames the other for failures on foreign policy and climate change policy. And so no sustained commitment is possible from the US. Same for Australia; the opposition can’t wait to follow a Trump administration in backtracking on climate change.
I once admired Western democracy. History will judge the West for its hypocrisy.
Would be interesting to see a corresponding graph plotting PER CAPITA emissions. And, as well, both data sets plotted on a log-scaled y-axis. From your graph it is evident that per capita emissions for the U.S. are about twice those of China. Both countries would benefit from adjusting their economic politicies so that their populations decline somewhat to stabilize at a lower level. Would give a heart attack, of course, to the "Growth uber Alles" folks at the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and the Cato Institute.
Superior k-12 and and college and university education systems, a more refined and fairly homogeneous culture, an ancient meritocratic system for training and producing governmental leaders and administrators, combined with "constrained" democracy, have made China the most superior system once again. As US culture continues to degenerate the anger and envy of both our political parties will have them competing as to who can crush or damage China first.
Historical climate justice, that takes into account the long CO2 free ride enjoyed by Western Europe and North America, is an aspect missing from Tooze's excellent overview. It means aiming for net zero is not enough. For these regions it means a net negative emissions target must be applied, equal to the area under the historical curve of those emissions before the "rise of China" etc., properly weighed for which free rider region was doing the most CO2 footprinting, for ex. the massive US footprint circa 1940's - 2000's.
Hence the massive fracking ramp up thru Obama-Trump-Biden is all the more egregious. Its high production cost on the world market makes it unlikely it will displace coal or tar sands (this from Canada anyway, so part of the North American footprint)
And as of 2022, the USA consumes its own production, in effect:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10324 (chart only)
That consumption goes up. That means even the net zero offset must also go up continuously, never mind justice.
Both the Biden and Trump administrations have done badly on climate change. Don’t fool us in claiming the Biden carbon is the most historically significant ever. Perhaps in the US. But pales in comparison to China’s, whose carbon mitigation efforts far exceed the US even though China’s per capita emissions is far lower. The US is a bad actor on the global climate change effort. When is the EU and UK going to wake up from their blinds allegiance to the US? All are hypocrites!
Shame on the US.
What we're seeing is the fruits of "all of the above." Generous support for renewables, nothing done to restrain or reduce gas and oil production. That has been the Biden plan from the beginning, and as the article says, it's not nearly enough.
So, with all due respect, environmentalists had better throw more than $100,000 into this fight. That's chump change and a rounding error compared to what the environmental sector puts into second-order priorities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/07/30/kamala-harris-climate-leaders/