comment: >
  
  EU GDP has increased in 2022 anyway
  Before you ask,GDP growth is always adjusted for inflation,otherwise Venezuela would post 1 billion % GDP growth
context: Is this because of a lower amount of gas imports from russia or? >
  
  More working from home, warmer winters reducing power demand, repressed economies demanding less production, a bit more renewable energy production. >
  
  Winters are getting colder in ireland not warmer, out summers are heating up though which is nice >
  
  It is right up until the beautiful ecology of Ireland starts changing rapidly and whole species begin to die off or migrate. >
  
  Ireland is already fucking it's most pristine habitats for compost, they don't need climate change to do so >
  
  Could you elaborate on that habitat for compost? >
  
  I assume they're refering to peat extraction, though I think Ireland uses peat for fuel more than compost and that's been prohibited for most people as of 2022. >
  
  They export about half a million tons of peat a year for horticultural use, which equates to CO2 emissions of about 192 kilotons >
  
  How does half a million tons of peat equal to almost 200 million tons of carbon? >
  
  You're totally right I messed up my calculations I'll edit the post. >
  
  For the EU, US, and Canada every wind turbine, solar panel, and replacement to more energy efficient light bulb/appliance is less money to Putin’s war. >
  
  And nuclear reactor …. >
  
  Nuclear reactors take a decade or more to plan and build. I really hope that this war is over a decade from now and that Putin has moved on to another plane. >
  
  They only take "a decade or more" to build in nuclear-unfriendly regions.
  South Korea and Japan are consistently churning out <5 year reactors. Even when breaking ground (not just adding on more.)
  The right time to start building them is now. We'll need them in 5 years. We'll need them in 10 years. We'll need them in 20 years. >
  
  So the entire EU, the US, and Canada? >
  
  Yes. 
  Point is, it doesn't have to take that long, there's no technical reason for it.
  I hate the "it takes at least a decade" argument because it's become the last refuge of the anti-nuclear crowd. 
  The waste argument is gone, the security argument is gone, the cost argument is gone, so now all that's left is "it'll take to long". >
  
  I'm pro-nuclear, it's a safe and reliable form of power. Unfortunately I am also realistic and know that there's many people against it who will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from being built. That combined with the safety regulations, bureaucracy, and lack of investor interest means that even 10 years would be significantly faster than most projects this century. I'm in favour of building it, but it isn't a realistic alternative to Russian oil and gas right now. >
  
  You mean if you make an effort to change you can fix things? >
  
  Except that what we're doing, funding unreliable sources that rely on fossil fuels and rejecting nuclear power, goes directly against what experts say will do the most. Unreliable sources only work to a certain extent. It's very important to look at all of the statistics, not just a randome number chosen to sell a story 
  And let's not mention us simply relocating our pollution to poorer countries. I'm also curious if this drop includes bs like paying off emissions by planting a few trees. >
  
  im really bored of pro-nuclear people just throwing off any other options as useless or even evil.
  I'm pro-nuclear, but the fact of the matter is that there are strong downsides to it, especially fickle public opinion. We need every tool in our toolbelt to progress. >
  
  I've never seen a pro nuclear person rejecting renewable... >
  
  Then you haven't roamed around Reddit enough. There's plenty of that. (I'm NOT saying that EVERY pro-nuclear Redditor rejects alternatives). >
  
  Very few does. We usually reject the idea of only renewables, because it's an unstable experimental system even if we built a continent wide smart grid. Actually I don't think I've ever heard someone rejecting renewables, that's actually absurd. >
  
  
  because it’s an unstable experimental system
  
  Given that we have countries like Denmark operating on 80% renewable electricity (and no, that’s not hydro), what is experimental about it? >
  
  California has about 15GW of solar installed. Everyday it produces between 70 and 100 million kwh's of energy. I think that's about 1/3 of the states daily usage.
  There are some days in the winter where production drops by 30-50% due to weather. In January it's about one day in ten. But significantly the reduction is only for a day not days in a row.
  Another thing California installed about 3GW worth of batteries in just the last three years. They can dump 1-2GW into the grid for a couple of hours.
  Basically you can't use any what if type arguments against solar and batteries any more. The stuff works and is competitive. >
  
  EU is probably the most surprising example of how well green policies can work. >
  
  How much of this is green policies and how much is basically rationing >
  
  100 / 0 >
  
  0% rationing?? >
  
  Considering that it was never rationed, that is correct. >
  
  To prented people are not Turing down their thermostat because of Russian sanctions is silly. The cliff edge of price controls is more or less rationing. Public buildings are setting thermostats lower. 
  Russian sanctions are causing an energy crunch and reduction of energy usage. Not a replacement of energy sources. 
  Even in the US where the energy shock was much smaller, driving was down like 8% y/y this summer >
  
  Not understanding words is silly. >
  
  People are rationing gas cause it’s expensive. Rationing doesn’t necessarily mean getting a government allotment >
  
  That is literally what it means. >
  
  An unexpected bonus from Putin. >
  
  How is this unexpected when the EU cut itself off gas supply? >
  
  Putin thought that cutting gas supplies to Europe would have a devastating effect on the European economy and would reduce support for Ukraine. It hasn’t >
  
  Geopolitical advantages are always temporary. Where there is a will, there is a way >
  
  Hope the EU can come to an agreement about carbon taxes on imports from places which are more reliant on fossil fuels for their industrial production.
  This transition has not been cheap, and carbon taxes, if structured properly can pay for it going forward, as well as give an incentive to other countries to transition. >
  
  The EU has announced this about a week ago >
  
  There is a provisional agreement, yes. That does not mean it is through yet. Now, the Commission will work out the exact legislation. Then, the Parliament and member states could have new objections based on the details, or change their position due to changing circumstances or a change in national government. And in any case, it will be in effect no earlier than 2026 >
  
  
  And in any case, it will be in effect no earlier than 2026
  
  Even though it will be in effect in 2026, it will start influencing investment decisions the moment it becomes law. Companies are not going to wait until they are slapped with huge tariffs before they start reacting. >
  
  Feel like I’ve been seeing a lot of doom and gloom stuff about the climate lately. So this is a nice thing to see. Change is possible >
  
  Doomers usually assert anything other than mass immiseration and reduction in living standards will “solve” climate change. They are misanthropic neo-Malthusians that don’t believe in basic realities (GDP growth in the developed world has been decoupling from CO2 for decades) and that innovation can radically change our world for the good. >
  
  Kiwi here - wtf are you talking about? >
  
  Let's go 👏🎉👏 >
  
  Great news to begin the year >
  
  Good. Now the rest of the world can follow what the EU did. >
  
  The US and most other Western democracies have significantly reduced their CO2 emissions in the past decade. >
  
  It’s easy to reduce when you are on an absurdly high number. US’s per capita emission is multiple times higher than that of EU’s.
  Also, I don’t give any hope that US’s emission would come down significantly anytime soon as long as the conservatives are prevalent
  The problem with the US is that those who emits a lot of carbon (petro companies, conservatives) doesn’t give a fk about climate change, and those who do care about emission are already doing enough, as they are the major contributor to US’s reduction in emission for the past decades >
  
  Would it surprise you to know that since 2007, CO2 emissions have been dropping significantly. The US is at pre-1990 levels again and the levels are still dropping. >
  
  It’s easy to drop when you are more than 2x higher than EU’s per capita 
  By dropping significantly I mean something like reach current EU level (cutting emission in half) within 4 years
  The problem with the US is that those who emits a lot of carbon (petro companies, conservatives) doesn’t give a fk about climate change, and those who do care about emission are already doing enough. >
  
  Why is it easy?  Just because you use more doesn’t mean it is easier to use less.   There are fundamental issues why the US generates more per capita that are not easy to change.  Our population is less dense than in Europe, less of our population lives in cities.  This means public transportation is less effective while the need to travel further is greater.   The US GDP is higher than the EU’s.   Also the EU population is over 100 million more people that gives EU industry generators a bigger denominator.   If you look, countries like Australia and Canada have a higher per capita amount that the US.
  Edit: Another fundamental difference is that the EU has a milder climate than the US.  The US gets hotter and surprisingly colder than most of Europe.  This requires more air conditioning.  This why recent heatwaves in Europe have been so deadly because so many houses and apartments just don’t have AC because they weren’t needed previously. >
  
  
  
  This requires more air conditioning
  
  
  I need to wear 2 jackets when entering a mall in Texas or Florida in the summer, and you call it “requires”.
  Admit it. Many if not most Americans just like to waste power.
  
  
  Our population is less dense than Europe
  
  
  Because some Americans prefer super large house in the middle of nowhere, and then turn AC or heater on for all rooms including those they hardly use. Their way to shop takes hours and they are driving trucks. Are these all “necessary”? Or it is a form of luxury that they never notice? >
  
  The cold season? What cold season??? >
  
  It was that stinky Ruzzian gas! >
  
  I don't really see what was unexpected about this, lack of Russian gas exports has lead to gas shortages and high electricity prices all over the continent. With massive efforts to conserve power in most EU member states and with many industrial companies halting production because electricity and gas is so expensive they're no longer making money.
  When you reduce industrial output on turn the power down in all government buildings and schools, as well as having millions of people reducing their electricity usage at home, then of course that will result in lower emissions. >
  
  Just because industrial production is up that doesn't mean every industry is up. Energy intensive industries are in a weird spot at the moment with some companies halting production due to electricity prices while at the same time posting record profits.
  Using the company I work for as an example, we're in the aluminum industry and we've had to shutter production in some EU countries due to electricity cost alone, while the other plants that pick up the slack are making record profits.
  And the plant I work for is significantly up in terms of value, but down in terms of volume. Things are weird, and electricity prices are having a major impact. >
  
  
  When you reduce industrial output 
  
  You stated that industrial output was down, and that this was the reason for the decrease in emissions. 
  It's not down. Simple as that. Some companies are down, but on average activity and output is up. >
  
  True, but the companies which are down are amongst those who release the most CO2 by using electricity to transform ore to metals. Which means it's still a good explanation for the reduction in CO2 output. >
  
  Source for anything you've posted here so far? I'd like to read more, thanks. >
  
  USA! USA! US-oh snap. All seriousness great job EU. this may seem silly but last few trips to Paris smelled considerably better than 10 years ago. I still remember being surprised about the smell of diesel back then. >
  
  Hell yeah. Bang on, Europe. >
  
  Wow, it’s almost like green energy works >
  
  The headline is an apt indicator of the recent success of the European Union in reducing their carbon emissions trajectory. The emissions are now at a three-decade low, and this is a major achievement. This decrease in emissions can be attributed to a variety of factors, including the implementation of new energy efficiency policies, increased investments in renewable energy sources, and a shift away from coal and fossil fuels. 
  The European Union has set ambitious emissions reduction targets in the past, and it appears that they are on track to reach these targets. This is due, in part, to the introduction of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This system puts a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by industrial facilities, and companies that exceed their limits must purchase carbon credits from others who have not. This has allowed the EU to reduce emissions more quickly and efficiently than other countries, as the market-based incentives ensure that companies strive to reduce their emissions.
  The decrease in emissions is also due to the efforts of European citizens to reduce their energy consumption. Many citizens are increasing their energy efficiency, such as switching to more energy efficient appliances and using public transportation more often. Furthermore, the increased investment in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, is leading to a reduction in the amount of fossil fuels needed for electricity production. This is further reducing carbon emissions.
  Overall, the decrease in EU carbon emissions is a positive sign for the environment and the global effort to limit climate change. The European Union has set a positive example for other countries to follow, and it will be important for them to continue their efforts in order to keep global temperatures from rising. >
  
  I’m not used to seeing good news >
  
  This doesnt say anything about imported emissions >
  
  To be fair, the place where we would import them from (China) is also massively investing in cutting back emissions. We give China a lot of shit, most of the time well deserved but they do move on this front. >
  
  It's also investing in totalitarian regime aspiring to become world bully. >
  
  That's on the totally deserved column. >
  
  Wow, all it took was cutting off of Russian hydrocarbon fuel. >
  
  Thanks, Russia.  No, really, thanks for pushing Europe off those fossil fuels. >
  
  Well,I mean since a lot of products is imported to the EU from abroad, emissions are not counted right? >
  
  No, imported goods, shipping, and off-shore production are all taken into account. The number is the estimated amount of carbon production required for the average individual to live the way they do.  So if the average person consumes X weight of goods produced in India or China they account for that amount of carbon production. >
  
  BS If that was true local heavy industry wouldn't be closed and replaced by import. >
  
  Uh, except, you know, to exploit workers from poor nations who's pay is so low, if not slavery, that it makes up for the over head, and more, of shipping costs rather than pay wages and benefits of a first world nation.  
  They started off shoring labor long before carbon production concerns where a thing.  They do it because of money, has nothing to do with the environment. >
  
  Thank you Russia! Now get the fuck out of Ukraine! 🇺🇦 >
  
  Forbes 😬 >
  
  Thank you! >
  
  So, their emissions are at the same level as they were in the 90s, when the scientific community started telling us to emit less carbon. Shit. >
  
  Maybe you should read the article before commenting. >
  
  Meanwhile in America we’re stripping power from the EPA… >
  
  The US has significantly reduced its CO2 emissions over the past decade. >
  
  Good for them. But imagine how much lower emissions in the US could be if conservatives weren't standing in the way. Corporations as well with lobbying. >
  
  but... I thought nOthIng is bEiNg dOnE abOuT cLimAte ChaNge?
  (pre war data here, total not per capita - per capita would show an even bigger decline) >
  
  Wonder how much biomass is in the final calculations. Because this is ‘net-zero’ which is the biggest lie in human history. >
  
  EU ETS is working.  All you have to do is actually want to solve the problem.  Align incentives, it's that simple >
  
  Thanks to renewables only, while nuclear has a record low output since months. >
  
  Which isn't shown in your link though. While it clearly shows how much more wind and solar there is than nuclear. >
  
  What isn't shown? The graph shows that in the last year nuclear power electricity production has stayed more or less the same. It isn't at "record low output" as you said.
  In last december nuclear power produced 85 GWh which highest output since december 2021 >
  
  EU GDP has increased in 2022 anyway
  Before you ask,GDP growth is always adjusted for inflation,otherwise Venezuela would post 1 billion % GDP growth >
  
  Yet they consider natural gas aka methane a source of clean energy. Since it was made this year, I wonder if they took that into account >
  
  It's half as bad (CO2 per kWh) as coal. Yippee! >
  
  Surely the emission of particulates is also much MUCH lower as well, it has to be >
  
  Not only that but traces of heavy metals and radon. To their credit I think these are filtered out. "Clean coal" claims to capture and sequester emitted CO2 but I don't know if how successful their trials have been. >
  
  And meanwhile China's carbon emitions outpace nearly ever other country on the planet. >
  
  The country with the largest population has the highest emissions, who could have thought. >
  
  Huh. I wonder if they're using VW's technology to measure that. >
  
  Sure helps in the comparison when you don't need to include the UK recently. >
  
  Yea, because they don’t have power. >
  
  Having your economy grow without any power would be absolutely amazing. >
  
  EU is doing something right here!  Pay attention world! >
  
  That's because they import their energy from outside the EU. It's a great way to play make believe. >
  
  That’s because they have no oil. The pipeline got blown up and Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC aren’t feeling super generous it seems. Isn’t necessarily a good statistic for them, but I suspect the scarcity may drive them to pursue more reliable and sustainable energy sources such as nuclear energy or advancements in battery technology. Solar and wind need some certain work to make them actually sustainable. >
  
  Too little, too late. >
  
  I feel like a certain war may have something to do with that >
  
  Putin's war has ironically made the fight against climate change stonger due to a revolution in renewable energy as they are now twice as cheap as fossil fuels, so thank you Putin you have green blood on your sick hands >
  
  Meanwhile Russia flared all the gas they didn’t move by pipeline. >
  
  They still importing that to the states? >
  
  Thank you putler for providing the boot up the ass.
  In a year or two our dependance on outside energy will be negligible. And the crooks and robbers will be left showing like a sour thumb.
  If we tackle the syndicate bleeding us dry for heating our homes we will scarcely see another crisis like this again in our life times.
  Don’t lose sight of a future without carbon based energy. >
  
  Thanks, Russia! >
  
  In many ways they couldn’t increase them if they wanted to >
  
  Take THAT, fossil fuel lobby! >
  
  Just look at those beautiful rolling hills...covered with solar panels. Exchanging one form of environmental impact for another. Putting panels on existing buildings would be so much better. >
  
  Ok, now di China Brazil and India! >
  
  Congratulations >
  
  People can’t afford heat that’s why >
  
  Lmao the weather is fucked but okay >
  
  That's pre-pokemon levels. Back then, phones didn't even have color screens.
  It's the 90s. >
  
  Bullshit statistics for 300 >
  
  Proud to be part of eu. Although sweden is up this year.. we have had an awful election that basically works against the climate now. >
  
  Ya, when you use pandemic statistics where everyone spend months at home with nothing to do, of course emissions will drop. >
  
  yes very nice, now let's see how is carbon footprint doing? >
  
  Now if only Germany, Poland and Italy went with nuclear energy instead of gas/coal/oil, that'd make an actual difference. >
  
  the 'safety zone' around nuclear plants that people won't want to otherwise live/work in should be filled with solar panels or wind turbines as appropriate for their geography. >
  
  Maybe there's hope for us after all. >
  
  From the US, thank you to the EU for caring and taking action for the planet. We will soon, hopefully. >
  
  If you think Kevin McCarthy is  a douche bag and should resign give a thumbs up because if you dont his head will be so far up Trumps ass he could literally touch his tonsils >
  
  For real or somebody tweaked the readings to show that? >
  
  All of this because of Gretta and that Pizza story, well done kid, well done. >
  
  Is it because UK is no longer part of EU and they're basing it off that >
  
  That's not the main reason
  German industrial output still increased 0.1% in November >
  
  Has anyone thought it might be because of the tilt of the Earth in its orbit? The Earth's tilt varies as it rotates around the Sun. Just a few degrees of change in the angle can change the latitude the Sun's energy a couple hundred miles. Imagine it's like the Equator shifts. Right now the Earth is near it's farthest historical shift, in a while it will start shifting back to normal and then start going the opposite way for a while. When that happens it will be a Global Cooling problem that everyone starts complaining about. 
  People as a whole tend to forget that the planet isn't static. Everything is in constant motion, albeit very slow, it's still moving. Tectonic Plates shift, Continental drift. Climate changes. At different times the planet has been frozen, covered in jungle, covered in water, Ice Ages come and go. Also Carbon levels have been MUCH higher than what they are now, even way before Humans started mucking up the works. >
  
  Nope. I’m pretty sure your comment just solved climate change. Go get your Nobel prize or whatever. >
  
  its the human emissions sure but i never see our heat output thrown around as a consideration, an average hurricane is equivalent to many hundreds or thousands of hydrogen bombs in terms of energy dissipation but kilowatts baking off our grid through its basic resistance and inefficiency and millions of square feet of human habitation leaking off a portion of its BTU constantly as to require HVAC cycles not to mention convenient hydrocarbon wellhead flaring, not even getting to Russias extreme flaring due to circumstances in a quaint thought that they need to keep it flowing in case it will be used by europe.
  and to stir the convection more we have the strongest la nina weather pattern we've had since the 90's which probably should have been worse but was dulled by our heat.
  we are lucky our sun wasnt heavier, the faster it burns the more dense it gets and brighter and hotter it is overall. global warming will be solved when we siphon off hydrogen from the sun to balance its weight and density to extend its lifespan. >
  
  You know… we also never throw around the idea of wind turbines slowing down wind, which usually is cold! We also put up all the black solar panels and it’s pretty well-known that black collects the most heat! It’s human emissions, sure but there has to be something there!! In the past there were far more really dirty greenhouse gas emissions and no “green”energy around. It was really much much colder back then!
  Honestly, I think there is only one solution to the problem and we won’t be able to achieve it, before we master space travel, sadly. >
  
  Probably wrongly measured.         
  Edit: sorry, I wanted to say adulterated. >
  
  Don't worry China's picking up their slack and then some >
  
  Is this because of a lower amount of gas imports from russia or? >
  
  More working from home, warmer winters reducing power demand, repressed economies demanding less production, a bit more renewable energy production. >
  
  Winters are getting colder in ireland not warmer, out summers are heating up though which is nice >
  
  It is right up until the beautiful ecology of Ireland starts changing rapidly and whole species begin to die off or migrate. >
  
  Ireland is already fucking it's most pristine habitats for compost, they don't need climate change to do so >
  
  Could you elaborate on that habitat for compost? >
  
  I assume they're refering to peat extraction, though I think Ireland uses peat for fuel more than compost and that's been prohibited for most people as of 2022. >
  
  They export about half a million tons of peat a year for horticultural use, which equates to CO2 emissions of about 192 kilotons >
  
  How does half a million tons of peat equal to almost 200 million tons of carbon? >
  
  You're totally right I messed up my calculations I'll edit the post. >
  
  For the EU, US, and Canada every wind turbine, solar panel, and replacement to more energy efficient light bulb/appliance is less money to Putin’s war. >
  
  And nuclear reactor …. >
  
  Nuclear reactors take a decade or more to plan and build. I really hope that this war is over a decade from now and that Putin has moved on to another plane. >
  
  They only take "a decade or more" to build in nuclear-unfriendly regions.
  South Korea and Japan are consistently churning out <5 year reactors. Even when breaking ground (not just adding on more.)
  The right time to start building them is now. We'll need them in 5 years. We'll need them in 10 years. We'll need them in 20 years. >
  
  So the entire EU, the US, and Canada? >
  
  Yes. 
  Point is, it doesn't have to take that long, there's no technical reason for it.
  I hate the "it takes at least a decade" argument because it's become the last refuge of the anti-nuclear crowd. 
  The waste argument is gone, the security argument is gone, the cost argument is gone, so now all that's left is "it'll take to long". >
  
  I'm pro-nuclear, it's a safe and reliable form of power. Unfortunately I am also realistic and know that there's many people against it who will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from being built. That combined with the safety regulations, bureaucracy, and lack of investor interest means that even 10 years would be significantly faster than most projects this century. I'm in favour of building it, but it isn't a realistic alternative to Russian oil and gas right now. >
  
  You mean if you make an effort to change you can fix things? >
  
  Except that what we're doing, funding unreliable sources that rely on fossil fuels and rejecting nuclear power, goes directly against what experts say will do the most. Unreliable sources only work to a certain extent. It's very important to look at all of the statistics, not just a randome number chosen to sell a story 
  And let's not mention us simply relocating our pollution to poorer countries. I'm also curious if this drop includes bs like paying off emissions by planting a few trees. >
  
  im really bored of pro-nuclear people just throwing off any other options as useless or even evil.
  I'm pro-nuclear, but the fact of the matter is that there are strong downsides to it, especially fickle public opinion. We need every tool in our toolbelt to progress. >
  
  I've never seen a pro nuclear person rejecting renewable... >
  
  Then you haven't roamed around Reddit enough. There's plenty of that. (I'm NOT saying that EVERY pro-nuclear Redditor rejects alternatives). >
  
  Very few does. We usually reject the idea of only renewables, because it's an unstable experimental system even if we built a continent wide smart grid. Actually I don't think I've ever heard someone rejecting renewables, that's actually absurd. >
  
  
  because it’s an unstable experimental system
  
  Given that we have countries like Denmark operating on 80% renewable electricity (and no, that’s not hydro), what is experimental about it? >
  
  California has about 15GW of solar installed. Everyday it produces between 70 and 100 million kwh's of energy. I think that's about 1/3 of the states daily usage.
  There are some days in the winter where production drops by 30-50% due to weather. In January it's about one day in ten. But significantly the reduction is only for a day not days in a row.
  Another thing California installed about 3GW worth of batteries in just the last three years. They can dump 1-2GW into the grid for a couple of hours.
  Basically you can't use any what if type arguments against solar and batteries any more. The stuff works and is competitive. >
  
  EU is probably the most surprising example of how well green policies can work. >
  
  How much of this is green policies and how much is basically rationing >
  
  100 / 0 >
  
  0% rationing?? >
  
  Considering that it was never rationed, that is correct. >
  
  To prented people are not Turing down their thermostat because of Russian sanctions is silly. The cliff edge of price controls is more or less rationing. Public buildings are setting thermostats lower. 
  Russian sanctions are causing an energy crunch and reduction of energy usage. Not a replacement of energy sources. 
  Even in the US where the energy shock was much smaller, driving was down like 8% y/y this summer >
  
  Not understanding words is silly. >
  
  People are rationing gas cause it’s expensive. Rationing doesn’t necessarily mean getting a government allotment >
  
  That is literally what it means. >
  
  An unexpected bonus from Putin. >
  
  How is this unexpected when the EU cut itself off gas supply? >
  
  Putin thought that cutting gas supplies to Europe would have a devastating effect on the European economy and would reduce support for Ukraine. It hasn’t >
  
  Geopolitical advantages are always temporary. Where there is a will, there is a way >
  
  Hope the EU can come to an agreement about carbon taxes on imports from places which are more reliant on fossil fuels for their industrial production.
  This transition has not been cheap, and carbon taxes, if structured properly can pay for it going forward, as well as give an incentive to other countries to transition. >
  
  The EU has announced this about a week ago >
  
  There is a provisional agreement, yes. That does not mean it is through yet. Now, the Commission will work out the exact legislation. Then, the Parliament and member states could have new objections based on the details, or change their position due to changing circumstances or a change in national government. And in any case, it will be in effect no earlier than 2026 >
  
  
  And in any case, it will be in effect no earlier than 2026
  
  Even though it will be in effect in 2026, it will start influencing investment decisions the moment it becomes law. Companies are not going to wait until they are slapped with huge tariffs before they start reacting. >
  
  Feel like I’ve been seeing a lot of doom and gloom stuff about the climate lately. So this is a nice thing to see. Change is possible >
  
  Doomers usually assert anything other than mass immiseration and reduction in living standards will “solve” climate change. They are misanthropic neo-Malthusians that don’t believe in basic realities (GDP growth in the developed world has been decoupling from CO2 for decades) and that innovation can radically change our world for the good. >
  
  Kiwi here - wtf are you talking about? >
  
  Let's go 👏🎉👏 >
  
  Great news to begin the year >
  
  Good. Now the rest of the world can follow what the EU did. >
  
  The US and most other Western democracies have significantly reduced their CO2 emissions in the past decade. >
  
  It’s easy to reduce when you are on an absurdly high number. US’s per capita emission is multiple times higher than that of EU’s.
  Also, I don’t give any hope that US’s emission would come down significantly anytime soon as long as the conservatives are prevalent
  The problem with the US is that those who emits a lot of carbon (petro companies, conservatives) doesn’t give a fk about climate change, and those who do care about emission are already doing enough, as they are the major contributor to US’s reduction in emission for the past decades >
  
  Would it surprise you to know that since 2007, CO2 emissions have been dropping significantly. The US is at pre-1990 levels again and the levels are still dropping. >
  
  It’s easy to drop when you are more than 2x higher than EU’s per capita 
  By dropping significantly I mean something like reach current EU level (cutting emission in half) within 4 years
  The problem with the US is that those who emits a lot of carbon (petro companies, conservatives) doesn’t give a fk about climate change, and those who do care about emission are already doing enough. >
  
  Why is it easy?  Just because you use more doesn’t mean it is easier to use less.   There are fundamental issues why the US generates more per capita that are not easy to change.  Our population is less dense than in Europe, less of our population lives in cities.  This means public transportation is less effective while the need to travel further is greater.   The US GDP is higher than the EU’s.   Also the EU population is over 100 million more people that gives EU industry generators a bigger denominator.   If you look, countries like Australia and Canada have a higher per capita amount that the US.
  Edit: Another fundamental difference is that the EU has a milder climate than the US.  The US gets hotter and surprisingly colder than most of Europe.  This requires more air conditioning.  This why recent heatwaves in Europe have been so deadly because so many houses and apartments just don’t have AC because they weren’t needed previously. >
  
  
  
  This requires more air conditioning
  
  
  I need to wear 2 jackets when entering a mall in Texas or Florida in the summer, and you call it “requires”.
  Admit it. Many if not most Americans just like to waste power.
  
  
  Our population is less dense than Europe
  
  
  Because some Americans prefer super large house in the middle of nowhere, and then turn AC or heater on for all rooms including those they hardly use. Their way to shop takes hours and they are driving trucks. Are these all “necessary”? Or it is a form of luxury that they never notice? >
  
  The cold season? What cold season??? >
  
  It was that stinky Ruzzian gas! >
  
  I don't really see what was unexpected about this, lack of Russian gas exports has lead to gas shortages and high electricity prices all over the continent. With massive efforts to conserve power in most EU member states and with many industrial companies halting production because electricity and gas is so expensive they're no longer making money.
  When you reduce industrial output on turn the power down in all government buildings and schools, as well as having millions of people reducing their electricity usage at home, then of course that will result in lower emissions. >
  
  Just because industrial production is up that doesn't mean every industry is up. Energy intensive industries are in a weird spot at the moment with some companies halting production due to electricity prices while at the same time posting record profits.
  Using the company I work for as an example, we're in the aluminum industry and we've had to shutter production in some EU countries due to electricity cost alone, while the other plants that pick up the slack are making record profits.
  And the plant I work for is significantly up in terms of value, but down in terms of volume. Things are weird, and electricity prices are having a major impact. >
  
  
  When you reduce industrial output 
  
  You stated that industrial output was down, and that this was the reason for the decrease in emissions. 
  It's not down. Simple as that. Some companies are down, but on average activity and output is up. >
  
  True, but the companies which are down are amongst those who release the most CO2 by using electricity to transform ore to metals. Which means it's still a good explanation for the reduction in CO2 output. >
  
  Source for anything you've posted here so far? I'd like to read more, thanks. >
  
  USA! USA! US-oh snap. All seriousness great job EU. this may seem silly but last few trips to Paris smelled considerably better than 10 years ago. I still remember being surprised about the smell of diesel back then. >
  
  Hell yeah. Bang on, Europe. >
  
  Wow, it’s almost like green energy works >
  
  The headline is an apt indicator of the recent success of the European Union in reducing their carbon emissions trajectory. The emissions are now at a three-decade low, and this is a major achievement. This decrease in emissions can be attributed to a variety of factors, including the implementation of new energy efficiency policies, increased investments in renewable energy sources, and a shift away from coal and fossil fuels. 
  The European Union has set ambitious emissions reduction targets in the past, and it appears that they are on track to reach these targets. This is due, in part, to the introduction of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This system puts a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by industrial facilities, and companies that exceed their limits must purchase carbon credits from others who have not. This has allowed the EU to reduce emissions more quickly and efficiently than other countries, as the market-based incentives ensure that companies strive to reduce their emissions.
  The decrease in emissions is also due to the efforts of European citizens to reduce their energy consumption. Many citizens are increasing their energy efficiency, such as switching to more energy efficient appliances and using public transportation more often. Furthermore, the increased investment in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, is leading to a reduction in the amount of fossil fuels needed for electricity production. This is further reducing carbon emissions.
  Overall, the decrease in EU carbon emissions is a positive sign for the environment and the global effort to limit climate change. The European Union has set a positive example for other countries to follow, and it will be important for them to continue their efforts in order to keep global temperatures from rising. >
  
  I’m not used to seeing good news >
  
  This doesnt say anything about imported emissions >
  
  To be fair, the place where we would import them from (China) is also massively investing in cutting back emissions. We give China a lot of shit, most of the time well deserved but they do move on this front. >
  
  It's also investing in totalitarian regime aspiring to become world bully. >
  
  That's on the totally deserved column. >
  
  Wow, all it took was cutting off of Russian hydrocarbon fuel. >
  
  Thanks, Russia.  No, really, thanks for pushing Europe off those fossil fuels. >
  
  Well,I mean since a lot of products is imported to the EU from abroad, emissions are not counted right? >
  
  No, imported goods, shipping, and off-shore production are all taken into account. The number is the estimated amount of carbon production required for the average individual to live the way they do.  So if the average person consumes X weight of goods produced in India or China they account for that amount of carbon production. >
  
  BS If that was true local heavy industry wouldn't be closed and replaced by import. >
  
  Uh, except, you know, to exploit workers from poor nations who's pay is so low, if not slavery, that it makes up for the over head, and more, of shipping costs rather than pay wages and benefits of a first world nation.  
  They started off shoring labor long before carbon production concerns where a thing.  They do it because of money, has nothing to do with the environment. >
  
  Thank you Russia! Now get the fuck out of Ukraine! 🇺🇦 >
  
  Forbes 😬 >
  
  Thank you! >
  
  So, their emissions are at the same level as they were in the 90s, when the scientific community started telling us to emit less carbon. Shit. >
  
  Maybe you should read the article before commenting. >
  
  Meanwhile in America we’re stripping power from the EPA… >
  
  The US has significantly reduced its CO2 emissions over the past decade. >
  
  Good for them. But imagine how much lower emissions in the US could be if conservatives weren't standing in the way. Corporations as well with lobbying. >
  
  but... I thought nOthIng is bEiNg dOnE abOuT cLimAte ChaNge?
  (pre war data here, total not per capita - per capita would show an even bigger decline) >
  
  Wonder how much biomass is in the final calculations. Because this is ‘net-zero’ which is the biggest lie in human history. >
  
  EU ETS is working.  All you have to do is actually want to solve the problem.  Align incentives, it's that simple >
  
  Thanks to renewables only, while nuclear has a record low output since months. >
  
  Which isn't shown in your link though. While it clearly shows how much more wind and solar there is than nuclear. >
  
  What isn't shown? The graph shows that in the last year nuclear power electricity production has stayed more or less the same. It isn't at "record low output" as you said.
  In last december nuclear power produced 85 GWh which highest output since december 2021