10 Biggest Polluters on Earth

[walrus]

Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.

Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.

They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.

I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.

Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.

Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.

The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.

Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable

I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.

Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.


I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)

Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.

[El Kabong]

Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.

Be sure to get a battery to store power from those panels otherwise when the power is out, the power is out ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.

[TitoFan]

Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.

Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.

They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.

I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.

Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.

Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.

The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.

Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable

I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.

Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.


I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)

Other countries do it..... so can the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...too-ncna901666


Countries like Japan can be given a pass if they're not rushing into the solar power field, but that's understandable given their topography and climate.

By the way, I stressed complementary for a reason.

I'm of the school of "let's do it, and move the excuses out of the way", so forgive me for continuing to insist on my train of thought.

For every idea, there's always plenty of "buts."


Also, can we leave "coal" out of the group you mentioned? Or do need to embark on yet another discussion as to why we should be moving away from coal, instead of continue to clutch onto it?

Oh wait..... you said "consistent, efficient, and dependable." You said nothing about clean. My bad.

As long as we continue to only value "consistent, efficient, and dependable" and say nothing about environmental impacts.... I guess we'll just never get anywhere and continue to champion the status quo.

[El Kabong]

Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.

Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.

They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.

I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.

Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.

Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.

The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.

Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable

I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.

Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.


I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)

Other countries do it..... so can the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...too-ncna901666


Countries like Japan can be given a pass if they're not rushing into the solar power field, but that's understandable given their topography and climate.

By the way, I stressed complementary for a reason.

I'm of the school of "let's do it, and move the excuses out of the way", so forgive me for continuing to insist on my train of thought.

For every idea, there's always plenty of "buts."


Also, can we leave "coal" out of the group you mentioned? Or do need to embark on yet another discussion as to why we should be moving away from coal, instead of continue to clutch onto it?

Oh wait..... you said "consistent, efficient, and dependable." You said nothing about clean. My bad.

As long as we continue to only value "consistent, efficient, and dependable" and say nothing about environmental impacts.... I guess we'll just never get anywhere and continue to champion the status quo.

I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.

Is what i said...whatever, take it leave it I don't care, I attempted to make a point and this has become a thread of diminishing returns for me

[Denilson-The-Comeback]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution

So I'm right then ? There is not a majority blk country fking up the enviroment.

Even though that's a fact. Its black ppl who suffer the most over the shit whites put out there.

Blk people are more likely than whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use.

Heat waves connected to climate change kill blk people more than whites

The agricultural is fked up, disruptions due to warming cost African nations billions.

The air is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The water n oceans are fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The ice cap is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The animals r fked up n dying out. Thanks to what ppl ?

Yet these are the same ppl running around telling everyone how smart they are. How high their iq is.

This is crucial bcoz u need air n water to survive.

Unless your gonna talk about white supremacy and it's mentality your never gonna get to the root of how fked up the enviroment is.

[Dark Lord Al]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution

So I'm right then ? There is not a majority blk country fking up the enviroment.

Even though that's a fact. Its black ppl who suffer the most over the shit whites put out there.

Blk people are more likely than whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use.

Heat waves connected to climate change kill blk people more than whites

The agricultural is fked up, disruptions due to warming cost African nations billions.

The air is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The water n oceans are fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The ice cap is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The animals r fked up n dying out. Thanks to what ppl ?

Yet these are the same ppl running around telling everyone how smart they are. How high their iq is.

This is crucial bcoz u need air n water to survive.

Unless your gonna talk about white supremacy and it's mentality your never gonna get to the root of how fked up the enviroment is.

Without the wrong doing of slavery you wouldn't have this platform to post on here, slavery was the worst thing ever , but you were not a slave and I wasn't a slave trader so get over it .

[walrus]

Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.

Be sure to get a battery to store power from those panels otherwise when the power is out, the power is out ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.

Well yes of course panels on the roof and you are still on the grid. Battery storage is a different issue. I’d love one of those Tesla solar batteries at my house but they are very costly and although when we do lose power we have lost it for 4-7 days but it’s not a regular occurrence to justify the expense but I do get concerned about some attack on the grid.

[walrus]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution

So I'm right then ? There is not a majority blk country fking up the enviroment.

Even though that's a fact. Its black ppl who suffer the most over the shit whites put out there.

Blk people are more likely than whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use.

Heat waves connected to climate change kill blk people more than whites

The agricultural is fked up, disruptions due to warming cost African nations billions.

The air is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The water n oceans are fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The ice cap is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The animals r fked up n dying out. Thanks to what ppl ?

Yet these are the same ppl running around telling everyone how smart they are. How high their iq is.

This is crucial bcoz u need air n water to survive.

Unless your gonna talk about white supremacy and it's mentality your never gonna get to the root of how fked up the enviroment is.

Sure big D just poach every animal in Africa to sell to the Chinese but put up a pic of a white dude who paid to shoot one lion. If it weren’t for white people you wouldn’t have all the humanitarian aid to keep the continent together. Do you consider Asians white? They are a different race but managed to thrive. Why not blacks? It’s all the white mans fault? Why don’t African nations get together and overthrow all the whites in Africa. Oh yeah you are in England. I keep forgetting.

[Fatboxingfan]

Big D is in England? Did he vote Tory?

[Gandalf]

Big D is in England? Did he vote Tory?

Liverpool = Labour.

[Beanz]

Big D is in England? Did he vote Tory?

Liverpool = Labour.

Liverpool New York

[walrus]

Is it still cool to visit Liverpool? I want to see the cavern, aunt Mimi’s house and other Beatle landmarks.

[Master]

Is it still cool to visit Liverpool? I want to see the cavern, aunt Mimi’s house and other Beatle landmarks.

Excellent place to visit, also go to the football club.

[Master]

Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.

Be sure to get a battery to store power from those panels otherwise when the power is out, the power is out ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.

Well yes of course panels on the roof and you are still on the grid. Battery storage is a different issue. I’d love one of those Tesla solar batteries at my house but they are very costly and although when we do lose power we have lost it for 4-7 days but it’s not a regular occurrence to justify the expense but I do get concerned about some attack on the grid.

My sister has the panels and they have a process where she sells the electricity back to the grid that she does not use and it is deducted from her bill.

[walrus]

Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.

Be sure to get a battery to store power from those panels otherwise when the power is out, the power is out ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.

Well yes of course panels on the roof and you are still on the grid. Battery storage is a different issue. I’d love one of those Tesla solar batteries at my house but they are very costly and although when we do lose power we have lost it for 4-7 days but it’s not a regular occurrence to justify the expense but I do get concerned about some attack on the grid.

My sister has the panels and they have a process where she sells the electricity back to the grid that she does not use and it is deducted from her bill.

Ya I’m thinking of something along that route. My rental place is all electric heat which makes people nervous as it can be expensive so I’m thinking of adding solar.