U.S. Emissions Jumped in 2025 as Coal Power Rebounded

US vs China/India Emissions Metrics

• Heavy debate over whether to compare countries by total emissions, per‑capita, cumulative historical emissions, or even emissions per land area.
• One side: climate only “cares” about total global CO₂; per‑capita numbers are a political distraction.
• Others argue per‑capita and trade-adjusted metrics are needed to assign fair responsibility, given that rich countries outsourced manufacturing to China/India.
• Some note China’s coal use and emissions appear to have recently plateaued or fallen, driven largely by renewables, while US per‑capita emissions remain high.
• There’s also criticism that current accounting credits China for emissions from export manufacturing but not exporters like the US for fossil fuel exports.

AI, Data Centers, and Rising Power Demand

• Many commenters accept the article’s claim that AI data centers are a key driver of higher electricity demand and coal burn.
• Strong criticism of “green AI” marketing: buying renewable certificates or distant projects while actually keeping local fossil plants running is seen as greenwashing.
• Some argue AI is a major setback for decarbonization; others say energy demand would rise anyway (EVs, electrification, population) and focus should be on how power is produced.
• Proposals include mandating that AI/data‑center operators build or fund new clean capacity (renewables or nuclear) rather than relying on the existing grid mix.
• Degrowth is widely described as politically untenable and likely to trigger backlash, even among climate‑concerned voters.

Coal, Jobs, and Energy Policy

• Several note coal mining now employs very few people; “jobs” are seen as a symbolic talking point more than an economic rationale.
• Some describe coal politics as culture‑war theater rather than genuine economic strategy.
• Others suggest retrofitting existing coal sites (e.g., to gas or other uses) to reuse grid infrastructure instead of outright demolition.
• Coal is repeatedly singled out as especially harmful: local air pollution, health impacts, and landscape destruction.

Regulation, EPA, and Political Context

• Commenters connect the emissions uptick to an administration openly promoting coal and weakening environmental rules.
• A related NYT piece about the EPA counting only industry costs (not the value of lives saved) is cited as emblematic of regulatory rollback.
• Some argue this effectively turns the EPA into an industry‑protection agency, prioritizing short‑term profits over long‑term societal welfare.

Heating, Efficiency, and “Boring” Solutions

• The article’s point about colder winters driving higher gas and oil use for heating is highlighted as under‑discussed.
• Multiple people argue that large, systematic programs to improve building efficiency (insulation, better heating systems) could yield major emissions cuts, but such policies and incentives are being rolled back in parts of the US.

Nuclear, Renewables, and Fossil Fuel Trade-offs

• Broad agreement that all fossil fuels must be phased down, with coal worst on health and environmental grounds.
• Disagreement over nuclear vs. wind/solar: some emphasize nuclear’s reliability and power density; others point to long build times, cost, and strong growth and falling costs of wind/solar.
• One commenter suggests coal’s demonization may indirectly favor oil and gas interests; others respond that coal’s unique local damage justifies its particular stigma.

Debate on the Article’s Framing

• A late comment challenges the word “jumped”: a 2.4% rise in emissions roughly matches a 2.4% rise in energy use and is within recent year‑to‑year variability.
• That commenter argues the headline implicitly overstates coal’s role and could be used to attack the broader energy transition, even though US emissions have been roughly flat since 2019.
• Several suggest framing coal opposition around immediate health harms (air quality) may resonate more with skeptical audiences than abstract climate arguments.