q1w2e3 saidOK, not steadily down uniformly, but still, European emissions are less than in 1990. And Eurozone GDP has mostly kept up in pace with the US over the years...the last few years not so due to austerity:
And no, I don't want the US to be seen as a failure on this. I want its lack of foresight to be highlighted. Since the US is starting out from such a high baseline compared to everybody else, a little less emission because of natural gas power doesn't absolve the need to try to steer towards renewable energy.
And how big are the subsidies for fossil fuel? Are they collapsing in Congress?
Your article pointed out that the reason there's been a boom in wind farms is that they have been rushing to put them up in time for the expiration of the subsidies. Your graph even shows how Europe has been in the shadow of US economic growth - and the differences as an aggregate aren't as insignificant as the graph shows. I suggest you compare the base measures between GDP 1990 EU/US to today.
Are you aware of the cost differential of electricity between US and Europe? You seem to want to highlight their lack of "foresight" in what way? Is the US set to meet the Kyoto protocols despite not even signing it or planning for it? What you seem to resent doesn't seem so much that they aren't succeeding at achieving very specific environmental milestones but rather they aren't doing it the way you would like.
And as for this claim that natural gas doesn't absolve the need to try to steer towards renewable energy... is that sort of like the ridiculous failed programs like cash for clunkers or electricity fueled vehicles that we are now told result in more emissions? Even without government support, we are seeing ongoing investments in solar by the private sector - because it makes economic sense rather than the cherry picking of failed investments the Obama Administration and Congress have supported over the years.
Incidentally, I find it a bit odd you don't differentiate between austerity and just plain running out of money.