3 ms·

A few counter-points: - US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0] - It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness)

A few counter-points: - US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0] - It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness) for developed countries to have benefitted from industrialization and polluting the environment only to close the gate behind them and blame other countries for trying to do the same and catch up in development. - It's expensive to force nations barely entering industrialization to forego the easy route of using coal/oil/whatever pollutant and jump straight to what can, sometimes, be a more expensive energy source. - Climate change is a global problem that doesn't mesh well with purely isolationist ideologies. This, primarily, is the biggest gripe with the current administration. It doesn't want to lift a single finger without seeing itself as the primary benefactor. This last part is purely opinion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

sacheendra 9y ago
Just a nitpick. According to the list you referenced, the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. The US is second, the spirit of your point stands though. Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  > the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. You're right, that was an oversight on my part. > Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration. This may actually be, in large part, due to the EPA. It would be interesting to see data for more recent years as well as end of this year (if it's not too soon) to see how it all changes.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The decrease in emissions is due to increased emissions requirements on coal plants (lots of smaller ones have been shutting down) and fracking. Fracking makes cheap natural gas which drives electric generation investment towards natural gas which emits about 1/2 as much carbon per unit of energy as coal. Low gas prices means that the investments required to meet coal regulations won't ever pay off. Plants shut down.
refurb 9y ago
- US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country It also has one of the highest GDP (output) per capita. Output requires energy input.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  I don't think there's a single economist in the world, without significant bias, who doesn't believe that China will be a serious economic powerhouse when it becomes a more developed nation.
- usaar333 9y ago
  For a developed country, the US has quite low GDP output per emissions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_... Only Australia (another country full of climate change denialism) and Israel fare worse. Canada is rather comparable. On the other hand, some European countries (e.g. France, UK) are nearly double gdp per emissions. Even Germany with its relatively large industrial sector has far better GDP per CO2 ton.
  - refurb 9y ago
    That's looking purely at CO2. Not energy.
    - usaar333 9y ago
      Why is that relevant? Either the US has poor energy efficiency (GDP output per energy input) or the US has energy sources that are highly carbon intensive. Both are bad.
zanny 9y ago
> It's a little unfair In this context, unfairness is required. It is unfair to tell the entire planet to stop burning carbon. We have been doing it for the better part of 200 years, why do we have to stop now? It is unfair. But faced with reality, the realities of the universe, of our planet, fairness isn't on the table, the long term survival of billions of people is. I disagree with flat out withdrawing from the climate accords, but saying its unfair so the two most populous countries in the world can continue to build up fossil fuel infrastructure for the next decade + is absurd. It should be an international stop, with developed nations subsidizing the cost of development of not-yet-first-world-countries by providing them access to cheaper clean energy, not giving them cart blanche to keep burning carbon.
vivekd 9y ago
See it's stuff like this that makes me suspect that the climate change debate is more about virtue signaling than any actual threat. Because really if we honestly believed that the earth was warming because of carbon and that this presented a serious threat to the planet, we wouldn't be like "oh well fairness dictates that we let some countries keep emitting high levels of carbon." That consideration wouldn't even come up in a situation where we were faced with a serious planetary threat. The only reason that this is even coming up is because climate change proponents, deep inside, believe that there will be no serious adverse consequences from climate change.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  > The only reason that this is even coming up is because climate change proponents, deep inside, believe that there will be no serious adverse consequences from climate change. That's not the case at all. The world isn't really a black/white place. In an ideal world, we'd all stop right now and focus -- concertedly -- our efforts on reverting climate change. Unfortunately, life just doesn't work like that. You go ahead and tell two large, thriving and growing, economies that "oops, we screwed up the planet, but at least we made a ton of money and our citizens live a nice quality of life! Wait, what? You want to improve your country, too? Well, you see, we sort of screwed up the planet and now you need to bear the responsibility on our behalf. Yes, that means stifling your economy and keeping your citizens in poverty. Yes, this also means the world will continue to view you as poor, undeveloped countries. What's that? For how long? Well, we don't really know, I mean, it could be a while..."
  - xaa 9y ago
    But it's not as if China, India, etc haven't benefited from the West's carbon-fueled economic growth. It was that economic growth that led to all the various technologies that they've imported. The West has also borne, and is bearing, the costs of R&D on green energy. If we are talking about "inequities", I would say these countries took an "unfair" leap in technological development because of us, so it is not entirely unreasonable to say the disadvantage of less carbon use has been more than offset by tech transfer. Especially since China and India are both notorious for not respecting IP rights. If not for the West, neither of these countries would even be in a position to want higher carbon emissions.

sacheendra 9y ago

Just a nitpick. According to the list you referenced, the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. The US is second, the spirit of your point stands though. Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration.

alpha_squared 9y ago
> the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. You're right, that was an oversight on my part. > Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration. This may actually be, in large part, due to the EPA. It would be interesting to see data for more recent years as well as end of this year (if it's not too soon) to see how it all changes.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The decrease in emissions is due to increased emissions requirements on coal plants (lots of smaller ones have been shutting down) and fracking. Fracking makes cheap natural gas which drives electric generation investment towards natural gas which emits about 1/2 as much carbon per unit of energy as coal. Low gas prices means that the investments required to meet coal regulations won't ever pay off. Plants shut down.

refurb 9y ago

- US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country It also has one of the highest GDP (output) per capita. Output requires energy input.

alpha_squared 9y ago
I don't think there's a single economist in the world, without significant bias, who doesn't believe that China will be a serious economic powerhouse when it becomes a more developed nation.
usaar333 9y ago
For a developed country, the US has quite low GDP output per emissions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_... Only Australia (another country full of climate change denialism) and Israel fare worse. Canada is rather comparable. On the other hand, some European countries (e.g. France, UK) are nearly double gdp per emissions. Even Germany with its relatively large industrial sector has far better GDP per CO2 ton.
- refurb 9y ago
  That's looking purely at CO2. Not energy.
  - usaar333 9y ago
    Why is that relevant? Either the US has poor energy efficiency (GDP output per energy input) or the US has energy sources that are highly carbon intensive. Both are bad.

zanny 9y ago

> It's a little unfair In this context, unfairness is required. It is unfair to tell the entire planet to stop burning carbon. We have been doing it for the better part of 200 years, why do we have to stop now? It is unfair. But faced with reality, the realities of the universe, of our planet, fairness isn't on the table, the long term survival of billions of people is. I disagree with flat out withdrawing from the climate accords, but saying its unfair so the two most populous countries in the world can continue to build up fossil fuel infrastructure for the next decade + is absurd. It should be an international stop, with developed nations subsidizing the cost of development of not-yet-first-world-countries by providing them access to cheaper clean energy, not giving them cart blanche to keep burning carbon.

vivekd 9y ago

See it's stuff like this that makes me suspect that the climate change debate is more about virtue signaling than any actual threat. Because really if we honestly believed that the earth was warming because of carbon and that this presented a serious threat to the planet, we wouldn't be like "oh well fairness dictates that we let some countries keep emitting high levels of carbon." That consideration wouldn't even come up in a situation where we were faced with a serious planetary threat. The only reason that this is even coming up is because climate change proponents, deep inside, believe that there will be no serious adverse consequences from climate change.

alpha_squared 9y ago
> The only reason that this is even coming up is because climate change proponents, deep inside, believe that there will be no serious adverse consequences from climate change. That's not the case at all. The world isn't really a black/white place. In an ideal world, we'd all stop right now and focus -- concertedly -- our efforts on reverting climate change. Unfortunately, life just doesn't work like that. You go ahead and tell two large, thriving and growing, economies that "oops, we screwed up the planet, but at least we made a ton of money and our citizens live a nice quality of life! Wait, what? You want to improve your country, too? Well, you see, we sort of screwed up the planet and now you need to bear the responsibility on our behalf. Yes, that means stifling your economy and keeping your citizens in poverty. Yes, this also means the world will continue to view you as poor, undeveloped countries. What's that? For how long? Well, we don't really know, I mean, it could be a while..."
- xaa 9y ago
  But it's not as if China, India, etc haven't benefited from the West's carbon-fueled economic growth. It was that economic growth that led to all the various technologies that they've imported. The West has also borne, and is bearing, the costs of R&D on green energy. If we are talking about "inequities", I would say these countries took an "unfair" leap in technological development because of us, so it is not entirely unreasonable to say the disadvantage of less carbon use has been more than offset by tech transfer. Especially since China and India are both notorious for not respecting IP rights. If not for the West, neither of these countries would even be in a position to want higher carbon emissions.