3 ms·

Please look at per capita emissions of India compared to other countries before making such statements. Wonder how Indians do a damage to the enviornment, by h

Please look at per capita emissions of India compared to other countries before making such statements. Wonder how Indians do a damage to the enviornment, by having the lowest per capita emissions on planet. FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

e9 9y ago
per capita is pretty good measure of efficiency but environmental impact is probably better measured by emissions per area of the country? am I wrong?
- matt4077 9y ago
  > am I wrong? Yes. Area doesn't consume energy, people do. Otherwise Russia would be the most eco-friendly country in the world, and something like Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy.
  - e9 9y ago
    I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. So objectively speaking you are correct, social issues aside, Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy. But the issue of pollution is complicated and involves social issues so my perspective is not very helpful when you make policy decisions or include fairness towards people, etc.
    - cygx 9y ago
      I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. CO2 does not care about which piece of land it gets emitted from: As far as the main subject under discussion goes (in contrast to, say, air quality), pollution per square foot is an utterly meaningless metric.
    - andygates 9y ago
      Some pollution impacts are felt locally (heavy metals), some regionally (acid rain from upwind sulphur oxides), and some globally. CO2 is one of the global ones. It's very well-mixed in the atmosphere. If we could point to a plume of obviously-warmed land downwind of a city, it'd be a much easier sell to the layman.
- rtx 9y ago
  You are right we shouldn't be focusing on on per capita emission.
  - manquer 9y ago
    The problem with not doing per capita is that you valuing each person differently arbitrarily basis their nationality... You can for example combine EU into one entity and say they pollute a lot. Or split china/india/US into 50 countries and say they don't contribute much individually. In effect favouring being born lucky.. in any random sample of the world population you have 33% chance of being born in just 2 countries . Do these people get fair representatation in any international forum ? It is either 1 vote per country or powerfull ones have all of it. Landmass also is not effective measure . You will end up with Australia, Canada and Russia driving the agenda Pop density has more to do with ability to grow food and energy efficiency of food consumption - comparing pop density and talking about over population has to factor that in saying china and india are overcrowded is not a sensible argument(they are over populated but not to extent people think) . We need fresh perspective on how we see the world , arbitrary national boundaries , Mercator projections and biased schooling makes our world view very distorted All of the above applies to the US as well . State borders are arbitrary. People in Pop dense centers like california do not get even the 10th of the representatation as say Wyoming. California could be 8th largest country in terms of economic output and has a pop larger most countries in the world yet people living there do not have a say proportional to their impact in domestic or international politic is that fair ?
    - e9 9y ago
      ok, seems like we are looking at this from different perspectives. You look at it from fairness to people and I look at it from fairness to earth. I argue that because pollution is so concentrated within the area, it destroys that part of earth more, this does not include anything to do with fairness towards people. But you are absolutely right if you look at it from perspective of being fair towards people. I am not at all against helping people though, I totally support destroying parts of the environment if it reduces overall suffering and progresses wellbeing of individuals in need. But my initial argument was that, social issues aside, looking specifically from environmental impact, per capita is not a good way to judge impact of the country.

e9 9y ago

per capita is pretty good measure of efficiency but environmental impact is probably better measured by emissions per area of the country? am I wrong?

matt4077 9y ago
> am I wrong? Yes. Area doesn't consume energy, people do. Otherwise Russia would be the most eco-friendly country in the world, and something like Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy.
- e9 9y ago
  I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. So objectively speaking you are correct, social issues aside, Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy. But the issue of pollution is complicated and involves social issues so my perspective is not very helpful when you make policy decisions or include fairness towards people, etc.
  - cygx 9y ago
    I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. CO2 does not care about which piece of land it gets emitted from: As far as the main subject under discussion goes (in contrast to, say, air quality), pollution per square foot is an utterly meaningless metric.
  - andygates 9y ago
    Some pollution impacts are felt locally (heavy metals), some regionally (acid rain from upwind sulphur oxides), and some globally. CO2 is one of the global ones. It's very well-mixed in the atmosphere. If we could point to a plume of obviously-warmed land downwind of a city, it'd be a much easier sell to the layman.
rtx 9y ago
You are right we shouldn't be focusing on on per capita emission.
- manquer 9y ago
  The problem with not doing per capita is that you valuing each person differently arbitrarily basis their nationality... You can for example combine EU into one entity and say they pollute a lot. Or split china/india/US into 50 countries and say they don't contribute much individually. In effect favouring being born lucky.. in any random sample of the world population you have 33% chance of being born in just 2 countries . Do these people get fair representatation in any international forum ? It is either 1 vote per country or powerfull ones have all of it. Landmass also is not effective measure . You will end up with Australia, Canada and Russia driving the agenda Pop density has more to do with ability to grow food and energy efficiency of food consumption - comparing pop density and talking about over population has to factor that in saying china and india are overcrowded is not a sensible argument(they are over populated but not to extent people think) . We need fresh perspective on how we see the world , arbitrary national boundaries , Mercator projections and biased schooling makes our world view very distorted All of the above applies to the US as well . State borders are arbitrary. People in Pop dense centers like california do not get even the 10th of the representatation as say Wyoming. California could be 8th largest country in terms of economic output and has a pop larger most countries in the world yet people living there do not have a say proportional to their impact in domestic or international politic is that fair ?
  - e9 9y ago
    ok, seems like we are looking at this from different perspectives. You look at it from fairness to people and I look at it from fairness to earth. I argue that because pollution is so concentrated within the area, it destroys that part of earth more, this does not include anything to do with fairness towards people. But you are absolutely right if you look at it from perspective of being fair towards people. I am not at all against helping people though, I totally support destroying parts of the environment if it reduces overall suffering and progresses wellbeing of individuals in need. But my initial argument was that, social issues aside, looking specifically from environmental impact, per capita is not a good way to judge impact of the country.