3 ms·

(As mentioned at other points elsethread.) The actual data are not presented as "per capita per $1 USD GDP"; this is a (wholly unintentional, I'm sure) misread

(As mentioned at other points elsethread.) The actual data are not presented as "per capita per $1 USD GDP"; this is a (wholly unintentional, I'm sure) misreading of a sentence describing the data in the charts. Actually examining the source data shows that there is a set of data measured in metric tons per $1 USD, and another, separate set, of data measured in metric tons per capita.

bilbo0s 17y ago
Also a repeat of my reply: So if we assume that your interpretation of the data is correct, Australia is just as big an emitter as the US, and they emit roughly 4 TIMES as much as China does. If my interpretation was correct, they emit 5 TIMES the US and 11 TIMES China. My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation, China is still not the problem. Why then, is all of the attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far larger emitters per capita. I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.
- anthonyb 17y ago
  The data that you're using does not support what you're saying. In metric tons of CO2 per capita, Australia has 18.12, China has 4.62 and the US has 18.9944. "Interpretation" doesn't really enter into it. The reason that most people focus on the US, China (and India) is not fashion, but that they have the bulk of the world's population. Australia only has 20-ish million people, but the US has more like 300 million (FIFTEEN TIMES!), and China has a billion (FIFTY TIMES!). So if their per-capita emissions go up, they're pumping out a lot more CO2. Have a look into the 'raw' numbers - ie. the absolute emissions - they're the ones that matter. Australia: 372013, the US: 5752289, China: 6103493
- anthonyb 17y ago
  Is there some reason that you're repeating yourself umpteen times throughout the article? It's getting pretty annoying reading the same poorly argued piece over and over (5 TIMES! now...)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Your arguing a statistic though. Even if Australia massively slashed their carbon emissions what effect does it have? Very little. On the other hand if you and China cut a small amount each, well, the roll on impact is huge. :) That's the statistic that counts here.

bilbo0s 17y ago

Also a repeat of my reply: So if we assume that your interpretation of the data is correct, Australia is just as big an emitter as the US, and they emit roughly 4 TIMES as much as China does. If my interpretation was correct, they emit 5 TIMES the US and 11 TIMES China. My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation, China is still not the problem. Why then, is all of the attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far larger emitters per capita. I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.

anthonyb 17y ago
The data that you're using does not support what you're saying. In metric tons of CO2 per capita, Australia has 18.12, China has 4.62 and the US has 18.9944. "Interpretation" doesn't really enter into it. The reason that most people focus on the US, China (and India) is not fashion, but that they have the bulk of the world's population. Australia only has 20-ish million people, but the US has more like 300 million (FIFTEEN TIMES!), and China has a billion (FIFTY TIMES!). So if their per-capita emissions go up, they're pumping out a lot more CO2. Have a look into the 'raw' numbers - ie. the absolute emissions - they're the ones that matter. Australia: 372013, the US: 5752289, China: 6103493
anthonyb 17y ago
Is there some reason that you're repeating yourself umpteen times throughout the article? It's getting pretty annoying reading the same poorly argued piece over and over (5 TIMES! now...)
ErrantX 17y ago
Your arguing a statistic though. Even if Australia massively slashed their carbon emissions what effect does it have? Very little. On the other hand if you and China cut a small amount each, well, the roll on impact is huge. :) That's the statistic that counts here.