2 ms·

> he environmental impacts of the US beef industry are in the same ballpark as the Chinese pork industry. The very article you linked put the entire amount of

> he environmental impacts of the US beef industry are in the same ballpark as the Chinese pork industry. The very article you linked put the entire amount of US farm waste at 335 million tons. This is much less than China's 1.3 billion tonnes (AKA "metric tons") for pork alone. https://s3.amazonaws.com/cd.live/uploads/content_image/content_image/292/the-environmental-effects-of-china_s-growing-pork-industry.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/cd.live/uploads/content_image/conte... > America's CO2 emissions per capita are still more than twice that of China. Again, from the standpoint of the environment, there is no extra credit for being absurdly overpopulated. China emits more CO2 than the US, the EU and Russia combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

mitchellberry 9y ago
So if China were to split into 10 different countries it would somehow become an acceptable level? Per capita is the only equitable measure of pollution. I certainly agree overpopulation of the earth is a tragedy likely felt for generations, but petty bickering over these very issues is why global leaders can't make any progress in greenhouse gas emissions.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  If those covered 10 times as much of the earth in similarly temperate regions, I would be inclined to say yes. > Per capita is the only equitable measure of pollution. Would you then believe that if Australia were to have a population of 3 billion and produce double the pollution China currently does, that the continent would be doing well on environmental issues simply because per capita numbers were lower? In any rational analysis, the environmental strain an ecosystem can withstand is directly related to the size of that ecosystem in comparison to the strain. The strain an ecosystem can withstand is, unfortunately, not increased in a per capita manner as human population in the ecosystem increases. This may not be equitable. Nature often isn't.

mitchellberry 9y ago

So if China were to split into 10 different countries it would somehow become an acceptable level? Per capita is the only equitable measure of pollution. I certainly agree overpopulation of the earth is a tragedy likely felt for generations, but petty bickering over these very issues is why global leaders can't make any progress in greenhouse gas emissions.

whatyoucantsay 9y ago
If those covered 10 times as much of the earth in similarly temperate regions, I would be inclined to say yes. > Per capita is the only equitable measure of pollution. Would you then believe that if Australia were to have a population of 3 billion and produce double the pollution China currently does, that the continent would be doing well on environmental issues simply because per capita numbers were lower? In any rational analysis, the environmental strain an ecosystem can withstand is directly related to the size of that ecosystem in comparison to the strain. The strain an ecosystem can withstand is, unfortunately, not increased in a per capita manner as human population in the ecosystem increases. This may not be equitable. Nature often isn't.