What a stupidly misleading metric. This kind of bullshit just adds fuel to the climate deniers’ narrative. Shame on the dorks who published this.
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.
Leaving aside the importance of pet capita, much of China’s emissions is western emissions in a trench coat. And I’m not saying that as a China glazer.
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
US increased coal use. China did not. So change in global emissions is US’s fault, because global change is based on sum of changes. Headline is fine.
US increased coal use. China did not.
China increased coal usage too.
China’s coal power on the rise again in 2026, reversing first-in-a-decade decline
Where did you learn that?
Looking at this again later, I think it’s the embedded 'quote ’ thing headlines like to do. Sometimes they’re like ‘Banana fiddlesticks’, vet says protect against fleas
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
Clean from what?
Trump made up some shit
Probably a good time to deregulate even more!
legalize shooting coal mine shareholders
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.
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.
I think that’s kind of a slippery slope. What would the USA or Japan line look like if you didn’t count all their exports either? I say let China be responsible for the China line and USA be responsible for the USA line. After all USA doesn’t tell China how they should power their factories.
Proper accounting of emissions is to attribute it all to consumer. They won’t make it, and ship it all the way here, if you don’t buy it. The graphs don’t do it this way.
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
uhm? india is bigger
Huh, as of 2023 apparently. Thank you for the correction.
But Indian citizens, on average, can’t afford as much energy expenditure.
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.
Your argument is that people who make enough money that they don’t have to spend all their money… Spend their money less than those who do spend all their money.
I was going more for the absurdity of a single person emitting more CO2 than a township of 150,000 people, plus the underutilization / hoarding of this imaginary construct: money by the people who have more than they need - as you allude to.
I also agree: the price of things does frequently correlate with CO2 emitted. Even when you hire someone for a service that emits virtually no CO2, what do they do with that money? Turn around and spend it on things that do emit CO2. Much of the cost of goods has to do with the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver the good (again cost correlating with CO2 emissions).
The only “industry” I can think of that moves significant money around without generating CO2 directly is finance, though when the money quits running through finance’s internal spin-cycle and finally hits the real world, it’s again purchasing the relase of CO2.
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.
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.
thanks. I personally do not see the point of what we are doing if we are linking to outside things alone. Its good to have sources but the convo should start here. Right now you have given me the only information I have because im not going to that other website. I would only do so to verify what is put in the federation.
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?
Is that overall, per capita, per unit GDP, per WonTon served, or…?
Overall
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?
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.
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.
Yes, because coal is considered “technology”.
Is power generation not considered technology?
Waddup Coalie?
