3 ms·
Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green h
by enknamel 9y ago
Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year. This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduce by 1/12th.
Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?
- realityking 9y agoThe problem is that you solution would require telling developing nations that they're not allowed to reach the living standard you and I enjoy - how is that fair?
- enknamel 9y agoWhy should that matter? All that matters is the environmental damage is reversed. That requires reducing emissions until we produce technology that can massively pull carbon out of the air. Continuing to insanely pollute the environment in the name of "fairness" is a great way to destroy the world.
- wand3r 9y agoI don't think it is this much of a zero-sum game. You have framed this in an odd correlation != Way; e.g. As pollution increases so does quality of life. Uh, what if we plow 100B into battery production and photovoltaic cell system integration? We could build the 5-6 gigafactories to recycle and manufacture batteries...That use solar free energy...To reduce pollution...And cost...To increase quality of life...To cheap to meter