4 ms·

Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the U

Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US.

jack9 9y ago
> They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news... High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance. Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
- abraae 9y ago
  Are you saying a country with 4M people that emits the same as a country with 100M people is doing OK? Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Depends on density if we are talking about local livability, Mongolia would have a lesser problem if everyone didn't live in its capital. CO2, on the other hand, is a global problem, so per capita is more relevant, but has all sorts of tragedy of the commons and prisoner dilemma implications.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
The solutions are exactly the same. The Chinese people aren't more fired up about solving climate change, but they have a huge immediate pollution problem that needs to be solved yesterday. But coincidentally, getting rid of coal plants helps with climate change, and they don't have the natural gas infrastructure to go with it much anyways. The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.

Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US.

jack9 9y ago

> They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news... High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance. Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.

abraae 9y ago
Are you saying a country with 4M people that emits the same as a country with 100M people is doing OK? Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Depends on density if we are talking about local livability, Mongolia would have a lesser problem if everyone didn't live in its capital. CO2, on the other hand, is a global problem, so per capita is more relevant, but has all sorts of tragedy of the commons and prisoner dilemma implications.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

The solutions are exactly the same. The Chinese people aren't more fired up about solving climate change, but they have a huge immediate pollution problem that needs to be solved yesterday. But coincidentally, getting rid of coal plants helps with climate change, and they don't have the natural gas infrastructure to go with it much anyways. The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.