Shirley the Left is Rejoicing

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
...no?... Gee..we need have Tranny esplain to us why not.

In the U.S., the data are clear and utterly convincing: In 1949, it took 1,098 metric tons of CO2 emissions to produce $1 million in GDP in the U.S., after adjusting for inflation. Today, it takes just 301 metric tons to produce that same million dollars, after inflation — a 73% gain in carbon-efficiency.

Indeed, we're actually decarbonizing our economy, and rapidly.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-co2-levels-drop-again/
 

transporter

Active Member
...no?... Gee..we need have Tranny esplain to us why not.



https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-co2-levels-drop-again/

Why do you insist on proving what a waste of time and money your education was??? As usual, you fail to understand the basic relevant statistical comparison. The amount of GDP per million dollars is absolutely irrelevant unless the size of GDP is factored in and the total amount of CO2 produced is then compared. (Didn't teach you that in your grad level stat class either?)

Annual US GDP (chained 2009 dollars) in 1949: $2,008,940,000

Annual US GDP (Chained 2009 dollars) in 2017: $17, 096,017,000

US GDP is 8.5 times larger in 2017 than it was in 1949.

GDP.jpg

So.... truncating the last 6 digits and multiplying the ton of CO2 produced per $1m by the number of millions of GDP in the two years we have

in 1949 the US produced 2,204,784 metric tons of CO2

in 2017 the US produced 5,145,896 metric tons of CO2

Can you tell which number is larger?? No? Ok...

Doing the subtraction for you: 5,145,896 - 2,204,784 = 2,941,112 (these are a little rough given the truncation but this is how much more CO2 was produced in 2017 than in 1949)

Put differently, in 2017 we produced 233% MORE CO2 in 2017 than in 1949.

Now...given those numbers, would you care to explain how you think the US is
actually decarbonizing our economy, and rapidly.
???

Dumbass.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
crackup.gif


Nothing is more entertaining than watching Tranny exert so much effort to make a complete fool of herself.
 

CPUSA

Active Member
Why do you insist on proving what a waste of time and money your education was??? As usual, you fail to understand the basic relevant statistical comparison. The amount of GDP per million dollars is absolutely irrelevant unless the size of GDP is factored in and the total amount of CO2 produced is then compared. (Didn't teach you that in your grad level stat class either?)

Annual US GDP (chained 2009 dollars) in 1949: $2,008,940,000

Annual US GDP (Chained 2009 dollars) in 2017: $17, 096,017,000

US GDP is 8.5 times larger in 2017 than it was in 1949.

View attachment 123580

So.... truncating the last 6 digits and multiplying the ton of CO2 produced per $1m by the number of millions of GDP in the two years we have

in 1949 the US produced 2,204,784 metric tons of CO2

in 2017 the US produced 5,145,896 metric tons of CO2

Can you tell which number is larger?? No? Ok...

Doing the subtraction for you: 5,145,896 - 2,204,784 = 2,941,112 (these are a little rough given the truncation but this is how much more CO2 was produced in 2017 than in 1949)

Put differently, in 2017 we produced 233% MORE CO2 in 2017 than in 1949.

Now...given those numbers, would you care to explain how you think the US is ???

Dumbass.
So...what you're saying is...it's taking 73% less CO2 NOW to earn a million bucks, than it did in 1949?
Have you reported your corrections to the authors of this article? I'm sure they would appreciate you calling them dumbasses...and racist.
My guess is they will get that eye twitch going on, trying to figure out if you're a climate scientist, with the way you skewed the data to get the results YOU wanted...

BTW...I found your manipulation mistake in about 2 minutes....My ten yr old found it in about 3 minutes...care to point your lie out to the rest of the class?
 
Top