US cuts carbon emissions more than foreign nations that criticize Trump environmental policies

By Justin Haskins, H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D

***H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is senior fellow for climate and environment issues at The Heartland Institute***

When President Trump announced his plan to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords in June 2017, the howling cries from left-wing environmentalists could be heard across the globe.

From Canada to China and throughout Europe, the world denounced the president’s decision as reckless and in contradiction to “settled science.” Without the Paris Climate Accords, they argued, Earth would soon find itself cascading off the global warming cliff.

One year later, Earth is still here, as you may have noticed.

And the U.S. economy – due in large part to the Trump administration’s commitment to deregulation and energy dominance – has continued to grow at breakneck speed. On Friday the federal government announced our nation’s gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of 4.1 percent in the second quarter of this year – the highest growth rate in four years.

On top of this good news, despite the warnings of gloom and doom from President Trump’s opponents, America is now the world leader in cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Yes, you read that right.

According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell

The United States’ carbon dioxide reduction is more than double the next closest nation included in the study, Ukraine. And the U.S. reductions are part of a larger, decade-long trend. From 2006 to 2016, BP reports the United States slashed its carbon dioxide emissions by about 12 percent.

The recent drop in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions is the result of increased consumption of natural gas relative to other forms of energy production, renewable energy and a more efficient use of electricity.

In the wake of America’s declining carbon dioxide emissions, the dire warnings issued by global warming alarmists have proven to be yet another example of environmentalists’ fear-mongering.

One of those alarmists was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who called President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Accords a “devastating failure of historic proportions.”

After world leaders from countries big and small also harshly criticized President Trump for choosing not to make Americans beholden to the United Nations, the leaders spent the rest of 2017 presiding over countries that emitted millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide – illustrating clearly the utter worthlessness of the Paris Accords.

China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.

But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.

“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”

So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 million additional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.

Perhaps the reason Canada, China, France, Spain and dozens of other Paris signatories added carbon dioxide emissions – while at the same time chastising America for working toward energy independence – is because the leaders of those countries know what skeptics of global warming alarmism have known for decades: The world is much better off with affordable energy than it is trying to combat a problem many scientists say doesn’t exist.

Of course, Prime Minister Trudeau and the rest of the Paris cabal will never publicly admit it. It’s much easier to spend time in office boasting of their own virtue and lamenting the tragic individualism of the American way.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/28/us-cuts-carbon-emissions-more-than-foreign-nations-that-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html

Comments

  • edited August 22
    Global CO2 emissions from energy in 2017 grew by 1.6%, rebounding from the stagnant volumes during 2014-2016, and faster than the 10-year average of 1.3%

    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.

    Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the UNFCCC came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1%).

    The largest increase in carbon emissions in 2017 came from China (1.6%), a reversal from the past three years when the largest increases in emissions came from India. China’s emissions in 2017 were 0.3% higher than the previous peak in 2014. China has had the world’s largest increments in carbon emission every year this century except in four years – 2000 and between 2014-16.

    The next highest increment came from India where emissions rose by 4.4%, though lower than its 10-year average (6% p.a.).

    Together, China and India accounted for nearly half of the increase in global carbon emissions.EU emissions were also up (1.5%) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history.
    https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/co2-emissions.html
  • Reaper, why don't you report on all the negative press against Trump that is currently in the news? Sad to say my friend, but your President looks like he's heading to impeachment.
  • @Sandman, I'll let Sarem and FactsMatters and loony redsnapper do that. As for impeachment they/democrats tried voting on it two times in thr house and it failed two times. Only 10 democrats voted for impeachment while the rest sided with the republicans and voted no. And you can't impeach someone just for not liking him. Lol
  • edited August 22
    The U.S. emitted 15.6 metric tons of CO2 per person in 1950. After rising for decades, it’s declined in recent years to 15.8 metric tons per person in 2017, the lowest measured levels in 67 years and under President Trump.

    image

    image

    Not bad for a President who turned his back to the climate deal of obama. MAGA.
  • Trump will never repeal the Obamacare even if he tried for a lifetime in the white house....
  • Sad when Trump is impeached? LOL Not the sane people around the world. Only deranged Trump worshippers will be sad.

    Trump's Repeal of Stream Rule Helps Coal at the Expense of Climate and Species

    When he signed an unusual act of Congress rolling back a regulation to protect streams from mining pollution on Thursday, President Donald Trump made good on his promise to ease up on coal mining.

    The repeal will mean more greenhouse gas pollution from burning coal. It's also bad news for scores of little-known imperiled species, such as nearly 50 types of freshwater mussels that live in waters affected by mining.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022017/coal-mining-environment-stream-rule-donald-trump-mussels-species

  • Thanks a lot, Trump.

    Trump's Environmental Agenda Could Cause 80,000 More Deaths, According to EPA's Own Data

    In less than a year and a half, President Trump and the EPA have successfully reversed or proposed to reverse no less than 60 environmental rules. Nevertheless, these regulatory roll backs were made without considering the impact that such measures could have on public health.

    As a result, Harvard researchers have put forward "an extremely conservative estimate" of what these public health consequences could look like.

    Their essay predicts, for instance, that the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan will result in an estimated 36,000 deaths and a whopping 630,000 extra cases of childhood respiratory problems – all in the next decade.

    These numbers are based on the EPA's own science – specifically, a regulatory impact analysis on air quality and health impacts.


    Under the Obama administration, such information was available for public consumption in the form of a Clean Power Plan fact sheet.

    The fact sheet informed Americans that the Clean Power Plan was predicted to avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks and 300,000 missed work and school days. The rule was also expected to bring in $14 to $34 billion in health benefits.

    Shortly after the Trump administration took over, however, that fact sheet was quietly deleted from the EPA website.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-researchers-trump-environmental-agenda-80-000-deaths-epa-data

  • Could. That is the keyword right @FactsMatters? Could cause 80,000 deaths. Could is a suggestion based on a hypothesis.

    hy·poth·e·sis
    hīˈpäTHəsəs/Submit
    noun
    a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    Wishful thinking or better yet guesstimate. Lol.

    Hillary could win. Reality she lost.

    This could kill 80,000 people. Reality is no hard date to enforce it. Lol
  • Could cause, may cause, are hypothetical. Not sealed in facts. Lol
  • Assumptions are facts and facts are assumptions.

    Facts: Trump lowered US C02 output.

    Assumptions: Could kill 80,000 people

    The facts is supported by hard data and studies and statistics while assumptions is backed up by assuming or thinking it could be.

    Only in a Trump derangement mind woild2 assumptions be real.
  • Yes, "could." As in, "When I drink polluted water and breathe polluted air, I COULD get sick and die.....unless a miracle saves me somehow." LOL


  • Facts support Trump while assumption support yours hypothesis. Your 80,000 is still a hypothesis. We learn what hypothesis is in the first 5th grade. Lol

    It could but that is yet to be proven. While trumps lowering of the US co2 output has been proven. Lol
  • What about space force?
  • reaper is having a field day! not so pleasant for trump nowadays and it will get worst, so better get use to it
  • Economy Up
    Consumer confidence up
    Unemployment down
    US carbon emissions dowb
    Obama officials security clearance down
    Liberal hopes of impeachment down
    Liberal butthurt all the way up

    M---A---G---A
  • Obamacare will never be repealed for as long as trump lives.....
  • Obama care is done a long time ago. Its individual mandate was scrapped. Where have you been. Its was done in the first months of this year.

    The Obamacare individual mandate is repealed on January 2018.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-obamacare-individual-mandate-is-repealed-heres-whats-next
  • Its now called Trump care. Hahaha
Sign In or Register to comment.