3 ms·

What does it mean to take GDP into account?

rayiner 9y ago
It measures CO2 production adjusted for total economic production and weather. I.e. it shows you which countries are the most inefficient vis-a-vis CO2 production, instead of just which countries are the richest or happen to have colder weather that requires more heating. China is a good example. It's not in the top 10 of CO2 emitters per capita, but only because it's still pretty poor. When you adjust for that, it jumps into the top 10, and the U.S. falls out of it. In other words, if you cut economic output by 1 unit in the U.S. (to lower CO2 production), and increase it by 1 unit in China, world total CO2 output will go up.
- orf 9y ago
  Of course, when you stop trying to massage the figures to make it seem more favourable it comes out with USA in #2, with 300 million people, and china in #1 with 1.3 billion. Your per-capita consumption is more than 4 times that of China, and for a long time you had the most emissions in the world. Your way of life isn't sustainable in more ways than just emissions. You have to accept that.
- Oletros 9y ago
  CO2 produced in China for western companies is acocunted in China? That distorts a lot because there is a lot of CO2 production outsourced to China
- neves 9y ago
  The USA got rich polluting, China also has the right to improve the standard of living of their people. Any measure that isn't per capita is deceiving. And American companies send high polluting industries to China, so it goes to their account.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    What does this change about the core observation, that shifting a unit of productivity to China from the US would increase CO2? If the goal is to minimize CO2, this seems like an important fact.
    - mac01021 9y ago
      Indeed! China has fewer emissions per capita, and the US has fewer emissions per dollar of GDP. The obvious solution is to move all the people in the US to China, and all of China's economic activity to the US!

It measures CO2 production adjusted for total economic production and weather. I.e. it shows you which countries are the most inefficient vis-a-vis CO2 production, instead of just which countries are the richest or happen to have colder weather that requires more heating. China is a good example. It's not in the top 10 of CO2 emitters per capita, but only because it's still pretty poor. When you adjust for that, it jumps into the top 10, and the U.S. falls out of it. In other words, if you cut economic output by 1 unit in the U.S. (to lower CO2 production), and increase it by 1 unit in China, world total CO2 output will go up.

orf 9y ago
Of course, when you stop trying to massage the figures to make it seem more favourable it comes out with USA in #2, with 300 million people, and china in #1 with 1.3 billion. Your per-capita consumption is more than 4 times that of China, and for a long time you had the most emissions in the world. Your way of life isn't sustainable in more ways than just emissions. You have to accept that.
Oletros 9y ago
CO2 produced in China for western companies is acocunted in China? That distorts a lot because there is a lot of CO2 production outsourced to China
neves 9y ago
The USA got rich polluting, China also has the right to improve the standard of living of their people. Any measure that isn't per capita is deceiving. And American companies send high polluting industries to China, so it goes to their account.
- tptacek 9y ago
  What does this change about the core observation, that shifting a unit of productivity to China from the US would increase CO2? If the goal is to minimize CO2, this seems like an important fact.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    Indeed! China has fewer emissions per capita, and the US has fewer emissions per dollar of GDP. The obvious solution is to move all the people in the US to China, and all of China's economic activity to the US!