US coal is Largest contributor to THE RISE… But china coal is still ‘by far’ the largest overall contributor. They write titles kinda misleadingly dramatic.
The issue is that an increase in US coal consumption exists solely to placate Appalachians that can’t imagine a future beyond what Grandpappy did.
And it’s like, Appalachians do, in my opinion, fit the definition of “marginalized group,” but at the same time the only way of advancement that they accept is pretending the world can or should be like it was before the rust belt was the rust belt, which Republicans are happy to give them.
Leaving aside the importance of per capita, much of China’s emissions is western emissions in a trench coat. And I’m not saying that as a China glazer.
You can pin power use to exported products, but how that electricity is generated is chinas state decision.
It’s not like they did nothing but they could also be way more emission free than they are now.Aren’t they the number 1 in solar and new solar?
Sometimes I look at them and think, well at least they decided to do something about it.
If it wasn’t for them, oil companies would have managed to stall EVs and keep them as luxury vehicles.
China isn’t perfect but I can’t see them as the problem when they spit out solar panels while the orange moron is literally paying billions to stop renewable projects.
Yes, China is using a lot of energy in general, and not just for its export-focused economy. The Chinese middle class is huge. They are top consumers of energy in both coal and renewables.
They’ve been intentionally using coal to develop away from coal for decades. It’s been a long term strategic thing, using coal power plants to build solar panel factories, then shutting down the coal plants. Meanwhile the USA keeps using coal for fun basically, while being like “well the Chinese are using it too!”. It’s hard for me to see China as the villain here
It’s says rise in the headline. Idk what your comment is supposed to be except for ‘china bad’ whataboutism.
I was misled upon first reading and so I wrote this to help others by changing emphasis. Their pull quote strikes me as a misdirection.
I see what you are saying but I don’t think it’s a misdirect. I think it’s the nature of fast reading. And I’m right there with you.
Or how about this - what should the headline have been?
I think it’s pretty straightforward
Even the clean coal?
Smiling Garak: Especially the clean coal.
When you type out memes like this it really is a Picard and Dathon at el-adrel moment
Picard his hand on his forehead.
“Clean” from what?
Trump made up some shit
At what point might we consider that the americans are conducting a grey war against the rest of us?
Since when are endless coups, regime changes, and a 4 generations long nonstop bombing campaign a “grey” war?
As an American, I have been screaming basically this to anyone who will listen for my entire adult life.
Government and the rich, not “Americans”. Americans are just as pissed.
but you elected him twice. Another posted suggesting that we name heat waves after usa fossil fuel companies. what a great idea. Last summer in Spain? The Chevron heat wave.
no, i didn’t. statistical analysis also shows it is very likely Elon changed the votes in several states, so I’m unconvinced a majority was achieved through legal means.
So the USA government elections are pretty corrupt
We had about 5 heat waves in SW Europe this summer, so we can go through a few more names. I’m almost tempted to name the brief gaps of normal summer heat as well.
No way burning the lumps of carbon increases the amount of emitted carbon. :surprised_pikachu
But we burn carbon! How can we have carbon if we burn carbon, smarty-pants?
Probably a good time to deregulate even more!
he just did. no more emissions regulations on power plants. welcome back to 1965.
1965 regulation with 2026 demand
legalize shooting coal mine shareholders
NO FUCKING SHIT (sorry not at you OP, just the . . . powers that be I guess)
What a stupidly misleading metric. This kind of bullshit just adds fuel to the climate deniers’ narrative. Shame on the dorks who published this.
Yes, because coal is considered “technology”.
Is power generation not considered technology?
From the article: “Make no mistake: China is still by far the biggest CO2 emitter in the world” in absolute terms, Law stressed.
It’s also the biggest country in the world by population, by far. That’s not really indicative of anything. China is also decarbonizing at an absolutely incredible rate, whereas the US are basically doing everything they can to increase their emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country
The US has been decreasing emissions for 20 years now. While China, as of 2024, was still exponentially increasing emissions.
https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country
Same with per capita emissions. The US has been cutting per capita emissions for 20 years, while China is still increasing.
The default scale of that graph starting in 1750 is a bit unfair. If you zoom in to after 1980 you see that China’s trajectory is slowing down and there are projections China may have hit peak emissions this year. And that’s despite them having taken over a large chunk of manufacturing for us in the west who have been able to reduce emissions.
The US has been cutting per capita emissions for 20 years, while China is still increasing.
But they haven’t caught US yet!
United States: The average American emits roughly 14 to 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
China: The average Chinese citizen emits about 8.7 to 9.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Next question: what’s the average CO2 emission per capita of Billionaires?
A billionaire’s total average carbon footprint is roughly 1.9 million to 3 million metric tons of (CO_{2}) equivalent ((CO_{2}e)) per year.
So, Billionaire’s income ratio is around 500,000:1 of an average US citizen, but their CO2 emissions are only about 170,000x - that makes Billionaires almost 3x greener with their greenbacks than an SUV commuting wage slave.
I mean, sure. But the atmosphere and climate aren’t going to care about per capita emissions. Total emissions are what matter.
So, is it easier to change the behavior of 3500 people who can do whatever they want, 340 million people most of whom have some choices in their lifestyle, or 1.4 billion people of whom about half are just doing what it takes to survive?
“Easy” is irrelevant. The climate doesn’t care about which is easier.
The simple fact is that China accounts for 1/3 of total global emissions. If the US went completely carbon neutral today, global emissions would be cut from 38.6 Billion tons to… 33.7 Billion tons.
If China went completely carbon neutral we’d drop from 38.6 Billion tons to 26.3 Billion.
Everyone needs to cut their emissions. China is actively doing the most damage to the climate, however.
If Elon musk contributed 90% as much as all of Germany would you be equally happy saying Germany’s 80 million people held more responsibility than Musk for their emissions? Per capita is the only measure that makes sense as it is how much each person is contributing.
Another way of looking at it, Yunnan creates far less CO2 than the USA so by your logic the USA is worse than it. Repeat for every other Chinese province.
And because total emissions matter, we all have a bigger responsibility to reduce our per-capita output if we’re above others. The atmosphere and climate don’t care about countries, so each American still has a much higher responsibility to change their society than each Chinese does.
I have literally said we all do need to cut our emissions. Not sure what you’re arguing against here lol.
I’m arguing against the assertion that “China is doing the most damage to the climate”. It’s obvious that the country with more citizens will cause more emissions, and it’s also completely useless! Or would you suddenly change your mind if China split into 5 countries, all less populous than the US?
Why should a Chinese person reduce their emissions, while each American emits so much more? You insist that arbitrary geographic divisions are somehow relevant, but they aren’t.
bY fAr
.
You’re right. If you look at the China line on the graph it IS starting to turn around.You know it’s fun how that same graph has been showing up re-labeled for 20 years. Like you can even see where the edits have been, but go off fam.
The latest release from the Global Carbon Budget is 2025 predictions, here:
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/
I think what most people forget/like to ignore is how nearly all manufacturing from Western countries has been offshored to China, I’ve no idea how things would look if this hadn’t happened.
Thank you, I appreciate accurate data. I hate engaging with Instagram memes.
Now, if you’ll notice, this graph hasn’t actually had a full data refresh since 2024, which is fair, because real data analysis takes time, however, you’ll also note that the rate at which China has pushed forward with decarbonization has exceeded projections in the latest preliminary datasets. Now whether those datasets are reliable or not is unknown but we DO know that since the 2024 election, the US rate of fossil fuel emissions has spiked, which again would not be captured in a model based on 2024 data.
Which is what the original post was about. Recent preliminary data suggests US fossil fuel consumption has spiked hard in the US and is rising. So I’m not even sure what the guy who posted the Instagram meme intended to prove.
It’s the same graph from the same source.
Look at the bottom left of the original image.The original image is a fake. That’s been floating around for years, with different years slapped on on it, different labels for various countries, and different headlines attached.
It. Is. A. FAKE. You want real engagement, post real information.
So, the X axis is actually the year.
So, the image is doctored.
What’s the last year in this data set?
Figure 5a from the 2025 report here https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/18/3211/2026/essd-18-3211-2026.html#gid=1&pid=1
The last data point is 2024 and 2025 is a projection
Thanks. I guess we’ll have to wait for more data to come out to see if the end is a blip or a real change.
With the growing demand of data centers it kinda feels like it will continue to increase.
But what does the amount of CO2 by China or any other country matter for the increase in CO2 by the U.S.? Yes China has more overall but that’s not an excuse for us to start emitting more, you know?
I do not know if it’s an excuse to for us to start emitting more tbh. I agree that a cleaner future is good for all of us and climate change is real.
I do wonder if there are times when figuratively putting your foot on the gas might be useful.
Would you agree that China’s excessive use of coal has worked out very well for them so far? I mean economically and by every other metric that you would consider a country successful.
It has worked well for them. They’re able to produce crazy amounts of electricity. I don’t disagree either that the U.S. could “put their foot on the gas” but only if it were going towards something like producing solar panels for every house, or building EV factories, stuff like that, to help us use less fossil fuels.
Which doesn’t contradict the headline in any way.
You’re right. It doesn’t. Would you say the contents of the article are relevant to what’s linked though? Or just the headline?
