The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions.
2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19.
Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.
I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.
Well, the distribution of transportation's emissions within the US is completely out of wack throughout COVID-19. People stopped commuting by car due to shelter in place and WFH, air travel was paralyzed, deliveries went up and trucking was a shit show.
Throughout 2020 I practically never saw jets in the air, and that's quite unusual for my locale, being east of LA (JTNP).
> “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.”
Ain't happenin', and this isn't going to get us there. Only massive, worldwide action will save us.
Again, this is not a "fix" in any sense of the word. At best, by itself, it's a feel good measure. But I'm sure we won't commit to what it would really take.
Being apathetic at home isn't going to inspire others to do better. And there is no one silver bullet. The mess was made by many bad choices. It will take many better choices and laws to turn things around.
This isn't apathy. It's real talk. If you don't like it, I don't know what to tell you. I explicitly said we should do this in another comment. My problem is with calling it a "fix."
My best suggestion is that if you invent a time machine, go back to about 1950 and see if you can nudge events in such a way that the climate crisis doesn't happen.
My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action.
Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
If you apply your own advice to the original comment in this thread, they were saying it was one of the easiest things we can do, not that it was sufficient by itself.
If I apply that interpretation of the original comment, and look at your comments as a rebuttal (which the strength of your language implies), it forces me to interpret them as "worrying about transportation is futile".
Even in this comment here:
> it's an incremental step, at best
You are implying my interpretation wasn't wrong. If it's a step "at best", then what is it at worst?
