Surely, the Lowest Point in Human History Was....

[The new erato]

I suspect that Jochanaan is well aware of what he consumes in his life. I viewed his post as thoughts about reducing one's carbon footprint in terms of transportation - not as not having one. Obviously we all have a "footprint". Regardless, cellular respiration qualifies us by default.    0:)

Methane is even worse than CO2. Some of us have "fartprints".

[Moonfish]

Yep, even the humble earthworm! 

[Moonfish]

Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan  ) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita.  After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?

Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751

[Florestan]

Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan  ) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita.  After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?

Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751

The question in itself is proof that the problem is not the internal combustion engine per se. Thus, you might want to reconsider the lowest point in human history as being the founding of the US... 

Seriously now, the answer has got to do with a combination of factors.

First of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.

Secondly, in all those countries public transportation is (more or less) widespread, reliable and comfortable, allowing most people with sedentary jobs to give up driving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the public transportation in the US, with few exceptions, is a disaster.

Thirdly, although I don't have any statistics at hand right now, from my own observation I suspect that in all those countries the norm is one car per family, while in the US the norm is one car per family member.

Fourthly, in all those countries many people live within walking distance from greengrocers, bakeries, markets, pubs, caffes, restaurants and other such conveniences. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this is far from being the case in the US.

These are some of the factors that came up in my mind right now. I'm sure there are others more.

Now, let's talk specifically about Romania. Almost 40 % of the people live in rural areas and of these only a  rather small fraction own cars. Many homes are still heated by burning firewood and many of them lack even running water or sewage, although their number has been decreasing. Public transportation in Bucharest? The fastest and most comfortable is the subway. If one is lucky enough to dwell and work within walking distance to and from a subway station then this is one's best option --- but unfortunately the network does not cover the whole city. There are also trams, trolleybuses and buses but they have severe drawbacks, such as (1) few of the buses and none of the trams and trolleybuses have airconditioning, in a city where temperatures during summer frequently reach 37 degrees Celsius and higher for extended periods of time, (2) except partially in the city center, they have no dedicated lanes, and (3) there are not enough of them to transport on time all the people who would use them. To quote a driver interviewed exactly on this topic: "You have two options: to stand an hour in a cauldron fullpacked with people who loudly curse their fate and the management of the Bucharest public transportation, while delighting in the accompanying odour, or to drive about the same amount of time a car with airconditiong (or at least an effective natural ventilation) while listening to music or even reading newspapers or a book during traffic jams. Honestly, which is the no-brainer?"

So there.

[The new erato]

Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)?

Too cheap petrol, and hence too many gas-guzzling cars, and citys designed for car use.

[Karl Henning]

Secondly, in all those countries public transportation is (more or less) widespread, reliable and comfortable, allowing most people with sedentary jobs to give up driving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the public transportation in the US, with few exceptions, is a disaster.

Part of the problem is simply, geographical scale, of course.  And numerous collateral considerations . . . .

Thirdly, although I don't have any statistics at hand right now, from my own observation I suspect that in all those countries the norm is one car per family, while in the US the norm is one car per family member.

"One car per family member" as a norm is an impossible exaggeration, of course.  Having said that, though, I certainly know families of whom it is true.

Fourthly, in all those countries many people live within walking distance from greengrocers, bakeries, markets, pubs, caffes, restaurants and other such conveniences. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this is far from being the case in the US.

Yes, see "question of scale," above 

[Florestan]

Part of the problem is simply, geographical scale, of course.  And numerous collateral considerations . . . .

"One car per family member" as a norm is an impossible exaggeration, of course.  Having said that, though, I certainly know families of whom it is true.

Yes, see "question of scale," above 

All true.

Honestly, to compare the US to Denmark in this respect is meaningless.

EDIT One car per family member is of course exaggerated, but one car for husband and one for wife is not, I think, especially if they work in different and distant part of the city.

[Karl Henning]

All true.

Honestly, to compare the US to Denmark in this respect is meaningless.

EDIT One car per family member is of course exaggerated, but one car for husband and one for wife is not, I think, especially if they work in different and distant part of the city.

Yes, we're a family of three, and we do have two cars.  Use of the second is quite light, but there are times when we simply cannot manage with just one;  and there is a not-unreasonable procession thence to elective-but-not-excessive use of the resource 

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

One car family, we.  We're unique among all we know here in the Midwest for this.  Many's the time when one or t'other takes a very inconvenient bus or just doesn't do what he or she wanted to.  But aside from the environment, our $ savings are huge and makes the trouble well worth it.

[Florestan]

This video gives you an excellent idea about Bucharest, its scale and car traffic level.

https://youtu.be/RR2SdvUTcNs

[Karl Henning]

One car family, we.  We're unique among all we know here in the Midwest for this.  Many's the time when one or t'other takes a very inconvenient bus or just doesn't do what he or she wanted to.  But aside from the environment, our $ savings are huge and makes the trouble well worth it.

The Middle West is a challenge for car-free living!

[North Star]

First of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.

The CO₂ emissions were in metric tonnes per capita.

[Moonfish]

First of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.

I just wanted to remind you that the numbers were per capita (per person) and not total footprint per nation. I guess one could include the space factor (per person) but that makes it a bit more complex as one considers the vast unoccupied spaces in some of the western states of the US. Infrastructure and city planning are definitely part of the reasons, but I think one needs to consider factors beyond transportation to explain the numbers (e.g. heating, electricity, food production and production/consumption of products).

[Moonfish]

It is interesting to track the changes in the CO2 release per capita over the indicated time span. E.g. China shows a drastic change between 2007-2011 as part of their rapid industrialization and rising per capita consumption levels.  Many European nations have lowered their releases slightly over these years. Many developing nations have doubled their releases (still a small number compared to developed nations). Viet Nam has a six times higher release per person. The future likely holds a scenario in which developed nations stabilize or reduce 10-20% of their releases, while most developing nations will drastically increase the release of CO2. The overall global total output is steadily increasing.


per capita
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751

[Florestan]

I think one needs to consider factors beyond transportation to explain the numbers (e.g. heating, electricity, food production and production/consumption of products).

Of course.

EDIT: I think you and Jochanaan would just love this article: http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/CarCult.htm

Much of the reason why suburbs look the way they do is because of zoning laws.  [...] The main premise behind our current zoning codes is the complete and distanced separation of homes and jobs [...] Corner stores are not allowed in most suburban residential neighborhoods, nor are apartments allowed above shops and restaurants.

Is this really true?

[Todd]

Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan  ) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita.  After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?

The US has, and will continue to have, a more carbon intensive economy, which includes all aspects of activity.  It should also be pointed out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries, especially the larger European countries (eg, Luxembourg and Norway don't really matter when it comes to big issues), so one can see a correlation between a measure of comparative income and carbon emissions.  It should also be pointed out, that per the US CDIAC and UN, the top three producers greenhouse gases are China, the US, and the EU as a whole, in that order.  And buried in this reality is the fact that the global emissions figures are skewed to reflect the massive shift of more emissions-intensive activities like manufacturing from the rich world (ie, the US and EU) to the middle income world (mainly China).  Going for finer details sees that some countries have adopted different policies for energy production, like France, which derives most electricity from nuclear power, driving down both aggregate and per capita emissions.  That is not an option for the entire world based solely on available fuel.  Transportation plays a big role, too, of course, but not the defining one, and it masks other issues.

[snyprrr]

The widely agreed upon "lowest point in human history was" in 1980, with the release of Heaven's Gate.

This was more along the lines of the answer I was shooting for... Humour Thread Fail... waaaaah!!

[Sergeant Rock]

This was more along the lines of the answer I was shooting for... Humour Thread Fail... waaaaah!!

In that case, the answer to your question is the early 70s. To whit:





Sarge

[Moonfish]

The 1950s - the golden "brain washing" era of consumer products!!!!!

[Moonfish]

and especially as a role models for girls...