Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So you're saying the MSM deliberately conceals the facts, and scientists - who are professionally trained to collect & analyze those facts, then propose optimal solutions - are too cowed and afraid to blow the whistle on China?

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously about arresting climate change needs to be pointing the finger at China as by far the biggest carbon emitter on the planet. Especially the scientists. They should all be shouting - we obviously need to start HERE if we're serious about fixing the problem!

No. Many scientists don't have a background in economics, and haven't looked closely at the trade offs associated with sharply restricting carbon emissions.

Back surgeons have a bias towards surgery. Journalists have a bias towards writing stories that attract lots of readers and advertising (e.g. a post apocalyptic world caused by climate change.) And many climate scientists have a bias towards cutting emissions along a timeline that will cause a lot of people a lot of pain.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are there any rankings for CO2 emissions per unit of GDP? I'm guessing we probably emit 1/10 as much as China on that basis. So if we really care about maximizing global wealth while saving the planet, shouldn't we be investing more in the good old USA - where you get 10x as much output per CO2 volume - and less in filthy, carbon-spewing Mainland China?

Ask and ye shall receive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rbon_intensity

In 2022, China emitted 0.42 kilograms of CO2 per $ of GDP. The USA emitted 0.26 kg/$. GDP in the denominator was adjusted for purchasing power. If you used nominal GDP, the figure for China would be about 0.72 kg/$, compared to 0.26 for the USA.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

What do we get, The Trump administration is paying wind energy companies giant sums of money to shutter their off-shore wind projects...that’s just messed up.

I haven't followed Trump's offshore wind antics since the courts shut him down. Before that, he was trying to halt projects without compensation to the owners. Why would you try to shut down a wind farm that was 95% complete and already sending electricity to the grid? Insane!

I do not believe offshore wind is competitive with solar, onshore wind, natural gas, or coal. And the government shouldn't pass out subsidies and pork to offshore wind projects to make them happen anyway. But changing the rules of the game and flushing huge amounts of sunk capital down the toilet isn't rational or, in the words of Salty, fair dinkum.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

At least China is attempting to do something about lowering their emissions instead of poo poohing the work of climate scientists and putting their heads into the oil sands.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No, but you can climb down off your high horse and recognize that the Chinese are dealing with the problem by participating in the creation of the new renewable electricity economy while Trump is trying to take us back to the nineteen seventies.

By the way the total amount of emissions since the start of the industrial revolution.

Cumulative CO₂ Emissions (since 1750)
United States: 25%
China: 14%

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Who gives a toss about what China’s done.

First of all their emissions are going down. That’s undeniable. Secondly what does that have to do with what we do here at home. Just because they act like assholes doesn’t mean that we have to act like assholes...

Only about 16% of China's energy comes from renewables, and 19% from renewables + nuclear. Coal plants supply around 60% of energy consumed by China, compared to 10% for the USA. Right now there are 290 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity scheduled to come on stream in China in future years. That's more generating capacity than the entire nameplate capacity of Brazil or Germany from all sources.

Yeah, China's carbon emissions probably will go down. It sunk hundreds of billions into real estate construction, and per capita cement and steel production peaked at levels higher than ever experienced in the USA. Cement and steel account for about 25% to 30% of China's total energy consumption, and the real estate boom has turned into a real estate bust. Lots of carbon was emitted to build empty skyscrapers and the like.

And the air quality in the cities sucks big time. So yes, China is pushing to install lots more renewable power. But they're still building lots of coal fired power plants too. That should tell you something.

For a long time there was a straight line relationship between consumption of coal, oil and gas, and real GDP. During most of this period, up through the 1970's, China was an overwhelmingly agrarian society. During this period, rapid industrialization and technological innovation occurred in the USA, Europe and Japan. China later piggy backed off of that. In other words, yeah, maybe China's cumulative CO2 emissions are less than the USA's. But neither China nor the West would have the standard of living they have today if humankind hadn't made use of fossil fuels since the First Industrial Revolution.

Finally, U.S. carbon emissions going forward probably will fall in absolute terms, and certainly fall as a % of the world total, from the current level of about 11%. Again, there's not a lot the USA can do. Except, IMO, speed up research in geoengineering and ways to mitigate the effects of climate change, to have a backup plan. Also, I could see merit in a reasonable carbon tax, structured so that it wouldn't affect our exports, provided funds were used to reduce the deficit or lower other taxes. That's better than having the political class hand out lots and lots of pork to their favored green energy businesses.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Just trying to follow the rules of the forum. The OP is about the Trump administration relabeling CO2 as a non-pollutant...

I believe we're on topic. Without fossil fuels, we'd live in a pretty suck ass world. And calling a non toxic product of combustion of carbon fuels a pollutant so a president can kneecap American energy production and so trial lawyers can bankrupt the oil companies is chicken shit.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I believe we're on topic. Without fossil fuels, we'd live in a pretty suck ass world. And calling a non toxic product of combustion of carbon fuels a pollutant so a president can kneecap American energy production and so trial lawyers can bankrupt the oil companies is chicken shit.

But this still has nothing to do with China. China’s energy sector really shouldn’t have anything to do with the Trump administration’s decision to reclassify CO2 as a non-pollutant.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but lustylad’s argument appears to be excusing the US’s behavior because they are doing it too and that’s just a bit messed up.

[pxmcc]

The case for why China is doing a better job fighting global warming than the U.S.

A compelling case can be made that China is currently more effective than the United States in addressing climate change, particularly when evaluated through the lens of deployment speed, industrial transformation, and infrastructure execution. While the United States demonstrates strengths in innovation and historical emissions reduction, China’s capacity to rapidly scale low-carbon systems positions it as a more decisive actor in the near-term global energy transition.


First, China leads the world in the scale and speed of renewable energy deployment, a critical determinant of near-term emissions trajectories. In recent years, China has installed more solar and wind capacity annually than any other country, often exceeding the combined additions of multiple advanced economies. This rapid expansion is not incremental but systemic, reflecting a coordinated national strategy to transform the energy sector. Given that climate mitigation ultimately depends on replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with low-carbon alternatives at scale, China’s accelerated build-out directly addresses the core structural challenge of decarbonization.


Second, China’s state-coordinated industrial policy enables a level of alignment between manufacturing, infrastructure, and energy systems that is difficult to replicate in more fragmented governance contexts. Through long-term planning mechanisms and targeted subsidies, China has established global dominance in key clean energy supply chains, including solar photovoltaics, battery production, and electric vehicles. This vertical integration reduces costs, accelerates deployment, and facilitates global diffusion of low-carbon technologies. In contrast, the United States’ market-driven approach, while innovative, often encounters delays due to regulatory fragmentation, permitting challenges, and political variability.


Third, China has demonstrated superior performance in transportation electrification, particularly in urban environments. Electric vehicle (EV) adoption rates in China significantly exceed those of the United States, supported by extensive charging infrastructure and competitive domestic manufacturing. The rapid electrification of transport not only reduces emissions directly but also complements the expansion of renewable electricity, creating a reinforcing cycle of decarbonization across sectors.


Fourth, China’s investment in grid modernization and long-distance transmission infrastructure addresses a frequently overlooked barrier to renewable energy integration. The development of ultra-high-voltage (UHV) transmission systems allows China to transport electricity from resource-rich regions—such as wind and solar installations in western provinces—to densely populated urban centers. This capability enhances grid stability and ensures that renewable capacity translates into actual emissions reductions. By comparison, the United States faces persistent bottlenecks in transmission expansion, limiting the effectiveness of its renewable energy growth.


Fifth, while China remains the world’s largest emitter in absolute terms, its current trajectory reflects a transitional phase consistent with its stage of economic development. Importantly, the rate of clean energy deployment in China is increasingly outpacing the growth of its emissions, suggesting an approaching inflection point. From this perspective, China’s strategy can be understood not as a failure to mitigate emissions, but as a large-scale structural transition in progress—one that may ultimately produce more rapid global emissions reductions than slower, incremental approaches.


Finally, China’s governance model enables policy continuity and long-term planning, reducing the risk of abrupt reversals that can undermine climate progress. In contrast, U.S. climate policy has historically exhibited volatility across administrations, creating uncertainty for investors and slowing the pace of infrastructure development. While centralized governance raises legitimate concerns regarding transparency and accountability, it also facilitates decisive action in addressing complex, large-scale challenges such as climate change.

And China doesn't have presidents like Trump who is trying to do his level best to wreck the planet as soon as feasible. His environmental stewardship plan can be summarized as "Make coal great again!" Trump doesn't care what kind of planet we leave to our descendants; he only cares about himself and maintaining his power and his fat cat lifestyle.

The Trump admin is weighing a $928 million payout tied to canceling offshore wind developments, after the company paused work following Trump’s election. This is true vindictive environmental policy; only a sociopath would consider doing something so utterly bonkers. With the current price of oil, wind is not only good environmental policy, but good fiscal policy as well.

The clusterfuck in Iran is one more reason to break our addiction to fossil fuels. Depending on how this war unfolds, some analysts are predicting that crude could go to $175/barrel or even higher. At that price, every alternative energy form, including offshore wind, will be not only better for the planet but better for your wallet too.

[rooster]

Nice post, px....

But it is not just that "China is doing a better job fighting global warming than the U.S."

They are setting themselves up to OWN the technologies, manufacturing, and distribution of all of this that will set them up to DOMINATE the energy sector in the future.

We will be a distant second, at best.

They will own this segment of the economy, which will only grow faster as time goes on.

They will fucking OWN it.

Not us.

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Second, China’s state-coordinated industrial policy enables a level of alignment between manufacturing, infrastructure, and energy systems that is difficult to replicate in more fragmented governance contexts... In contrast, the United States’ market-driven approach, while innovative, often encounters delays due to regulatory fragmentation, permitting challenges, and political variability.

TRANSLATION: It's a shame we poor schmucks in the U.S. have to put up with democratic rules, elections, and a market-driven economy. If only we were more like China - i.e. if only we had an autocratic President-for-Life whose one-party CCP diktats can't be challenged, along with a centrally planned economy allowing us to shove our virtuous greenie regs & bans down the throats of all U.S. businesses & consumers - then we could really fix the climate crisis!

[pxmcc]

^^lol sir..

well played..

[rooster]

No it ain't. It's just MAGA rationalization.

We let this get off topic, and now we gotta put up with it. Coulda been worse. At least it wasn't 14 paragraphs from some "expert" guesting in the WSJ....

Tell us more 'bout them "greenie regs" please, laddy. Dredge us up a nice long one in support of the topic, i.e. CO2 regs, and whether you support these moves to knee-cap the EPA, etc.

.

[Brot]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Perhaps all Democrats should do their part and stop breathing. The world would be a much better place.

Like the Maga science deniers that missed the classes on germ theory and vaccines.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Belongs in the Cat-Box - IMMHO

[Unique_Carpenter]

Getting back to the thread topic of CO2......

Perhaps Trump is a tree hugger?
CO2 is essential for trees and other vegetation.
And, critically important, trees create O2 that the bipeds need for life.

[pxmcc]

last 11 years are the hottest on record. coincidence?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00946-6

423.9 ppm CO2, the highest in 2 million years. and that was just 2024, the most recent date we have data for. probably higher now.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Getting back to the thread topic of CO2......

Perhaps Trump is a tree hugger?
CO2 is essential for trees and other vegetation.
And, critically important, trees create O2 that the bipeds need for life.

Good Gawd. We still got people posting THIS idea?

Water is essential for life too. But ya can drown in it.

Faak....

.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Geeze Rooster, so I left out the sarcasm font marker.

[txdot-guy]

Suffice it to say what the Trump administration has done is bad government policy.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Getting back to the thread topic of CO2......

Perhaps Trump is a tree hugger?
CO2 is essential for trees and other vegetation.
And, critically important, trees create O2 that the bipeds need for life.

Originally Posted by rooster

Good Gawd. We still got people posting THIS idea?

Water is essential for life too. But ya can drown in it.

Faak....

.

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Geeze Rooster, so I left out the sarcasm font marker.

Yup, okay, I should have known, as you are definitely more on the ball than most here. You got caught in the cross-fire cuz there actually ARE people here that think this way...that buy into the bullshit that increasing CO2 levels ARE a good thing...and deniers expressing their blind fealty through weird "cat box" idioms...

I shoulda give you more credit though.

.