5 ms·

I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing emissions from each country on a per capita basis. This is an easy way to make US look l

I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing emissions from each country on a per capita basis. This is an easy way to make US look like a responsible polluter compared to India and China. Its a different ball game, if you factor in the total emissions per capita over last 100 years, in which case, US emissions are probably a few multiples over China and India combined (that's my guess. I'm too lazy to calculate these numbers).

pixl97 8y ago
Eh, that doesn't necessarily provide fair statistics. Lets use this contrived example with made up numbers where the US has a population of 500 million and China 1 billion. US per capita: 1000 tons of CO2 per year China per capita: 1000 tons of CO2 per year. Looks like China is twice as good. But if you break out population statistics and 500 million of them live in mud huts and produce almost no CO2, then the other half that have moved to US like living conditions produce US like carbon.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  How much of China's CO2 is emitted to produce things for the US to consume?
  - lastUsername 8y ago
    Exactly, China emissions are also the result of European and American companies producing products in China for all the world.
  - hwillis 8y ago
    China's GDP is 13.5 trillion nominal USD and their annual trade deficit with the US (their largest export) is 335 billion USD. So not much.
  - thinkcontext 8y ago
    Carbon Brief has data on this on a worldwide basis https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
- antisthenes 8y ago
  If US and China both produce 1000 tons of CO2 per capita per year, then China is twice as bad as the US, not twice as good. The measure you're looking for is carbon intensity of economy. How many tons of CO2 are produced per, say $1000 of economic output. > But if you break out population statistics and 500 million of them live in mud huts and produce almost no CO2, then the other half that have moved to US like living conditions produce US like carbon. That's not really indicative of anything other than a wealth disparity, which I'm sure can happen both in high and low per capita polluters.
rwcarlsen 8y ago
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita emissions - it just cares about absolute concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you want to solve the problem, largest (in absolute terms - not per capita) emitters need to cut back. Somewhere in the world one human emits more CO2 per capita than everyone else in the world. If they stop emitting, we haven't solved anything.
- calvinbhai 8y ago
  Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about geo-political boundaries either Countries won't solve it. If Americans can own up to the fact that per capita reduction in co2 emissions by them, will have a huge effect on co2 emissions in the world (because that means practices/regulations/technology that'll trickle down to largest polluting countries.), then it'll mean genuine difference. American media has no right to point fingers at countries that has never been among the highest per capita polluters in the world, and has been so historically. Sadly, Americans (those who are into virtue signaling) are too hung up on stuff fed by NYT to realize that they have been polluting the most, and them pontificating to others will help no one.
  - rwcarlsen 8y ago
    You have some good points. I personally think we still would have an unacceptably large problem w.r.t. climate change regardless of what happens in the USA. And the U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much smaller than other large countries - and ones that have strong, independent governments to boot. The US is definitely a big player. I think it is still most useful to look at this in terms of emissions per geo-political entity rather than per capita since that will be the mechanism by which the problem is addressed (or not).
    - calvinbhai 8y ago
      I agree with you on the "U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much smaller". But my POV (as someone who spend 1/3 of my life in US and rest in India) is that US has huge potential to cut down on unnecessary emissions in terms of HVAC, lighting, using efficient cars, subsidizing public transport systems. Hence I have this huge bias against the energy consumption habits of Americans in the US. Main problem is that the economy of US and many developed nations run on fuel burning carbon emitting industries (crude oil, car manufacturing, gas/electric utilities, car dealerships selling IC engine cars, HVAC equipment). That is why lobbies in US scuttle any govt moves toward encouraging solar/wind power, electric cars (It's a surprise for me that Tesla has survived this far), public transport systems. I also agree that emissions as a geo-political entity helps in driving global policies to reduce emissions. But beyond that, if US is not setting an example like recently GM shut down many sedan making plants in US and Canada (and POTUS gives an excuse that he'll get rid of subsidies for GM's electric cars while Americans are moving back to their SUV craze), it's only going to mean tougher choices for India and China to make, with costs born by those citizens, and a price will be paid by the current heads of state in the respective countries because they capitulated to US's pontificating (Eg: Canada PM has a growing anti incumbency for the next round of elections). India is making the right moves as of now (crazy huge solar fields and alliances, massive investments in public transport infra, LPG and electricity connections / supply to more households etc), but it'll take a decade at least for any of this to materialize into reduced emissions. (None of this is even factoring the pollution in China because of US's consumption of goods manufactured in China and transported to the US, which gives US kind of a free ticket to pontificate saying they are not the most most polluting country.)
CalRobert 8y ago
The planet will be just as warm if one person emits all the carbon as ten billion. Also, reducing your population growth rate is a great way to reduce carbon emissions. A world with 500 million people living in luxury is arguably better than one with 15 billion where the living envy the dead. Though you get to some key points. The most annoying issue is perhaps that China's emissions are largely a result of building crap for rich people in the US and Europe.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  It looks like exports from China are about 20% of GDP: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS It's possible but does not seem particularly likely that exports are more than 2.5x as GHG-intensive as the rest of the Chinese economy; that's what would be required for Chinese exports to account for the majority of Chinese GHG emissions. "They're just giving buyers what they demand" is not a good reason to shift blame from American corporate polluters to the consumers that buy their products. I don't see why export-oriented Chinese corporations should face less criticism for the same pollution. Both the benefits (increased market share) and the detriments (increased pollution) come from the same decisions these companies make about using dirty cheap energy.

pixl97 8y ago

Eh, that doesn't necessarily provide fair statistics. Lets use this contrived example with made up numbers where the US has a population of 500 million and China 1 billion. US per capita: 1000 tons of CO2 per year China per capita: 1000 tons of CO2 per year. Looks like China is twice as good. But if you break out population statistics and 500 million of them live in mud huts and produce almost no CO2, then the other half that have moved to US like living conditions produce US like carbon.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
How much of China's CO2 is emitted to produce things for the US to consume?
- lastUsername 8y ago
  Exactly, China emissions are also the result of European and American companies producing products in China for all the world.
- hwillis 8y ago
  China's GDP is 13.5 trillion nominal USD and their annual trade deficit with the US (their largest export) is 335 billion USD. So not much.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Carbon Brief has data on this on a worldwide basis https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
antisthenes 8y ago
If US and China both produce 1000 tons of CO2 per capita per year, then China is twice as bad as the US, not twice as good. The measure you're looking for is carbon intensity of economy. How many tons of CO2 are produced per, say $1000 of economic output. > But if you break out population statistics and 500 million of them live in mud huts and produce almost no CO2, then the other half that have moved to US like living conditions produce US like carbon. That's not really indicative of anything other than a wealth disparity, which I'm sure can happen both in high and low per capita polluters.

rwcarlsen 8y ago

Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita emissions - it just cares about absolute concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you want to solve the problem, largest (in absolute terms - not per capita) emitters need to cut back. Somewhere in the world one human emits more CO2 per capita than everyone else in the world. If they stop emitting, we haven't solved anything.

calvinbhai 8y ago
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about geo-political boundaries either Countries won't solve it. If Americans can own up to the fact that per capita reduction in co2 emissions by them, will have a huge effect on co2 emissions in the world (because that means practices/regulations/technology that'll trickle down to largest polluting countries.), then it'll mean genuine difference. American media has no right to point fingers at countries that has never been among the highest per capita polluters in the world, and has been so historically. Sadly, Americans (those who are into virtue signaling) are too hung up on stuff fed by NYT to realize that they have been polluting the most, and them pontificating to others will help no one.
- rwcarlsen 8y ago
  You have some good points. I personally think we still would have an unacceptably large problem w.r.t. climate change regardless of what happens in the USA. And the U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much smaller than other large countries - and ones that have strong, independent governments to boot. The US is definitely a big player. I think it is still most useful to look at this in terms of emissions per geo-political entity rather than per capita since that will be the mechanism by which the problem is addressed (or not).
  - calvinbhai 8y ago
    I agree with you on the "U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much smaller". But my POV (as someone who spend 1/3 of my life in US and rest in India) is that US has huge potential to cut down on unnecessary emissions in terms of HVAC, lighting, using efficient cars, subsidizing public transport systems. Hence I have this huge bias against the energy consumption habits of Americans in the US. Main problem is that the economy of US and many developed nations run on fuel burning carbon emitting industries (crude oil, car manufacturing, gas/electric utilities, car dealerships selling IC engine cars, HVAC equipment). That is why lobbies in US scuttle any govt moves toward encouraging solar/wind power, electric cars (It's a surprise for me that Tesla has survived this far), public transport systems. I also agree that emissions as a geo-political entity helps in driving global policies to reduce emissions. But beyond that, if US is not setting an example like recently GM shut down many sedan making plants in US and Canada (and POTUS gives an excuse that he'll get rid of subsidies for GM's electric cars while Americans are moving back to their SUV craze), it's only going to mean tougher choices for India and China to make, with costs born by those citizens, and a price will be paid by the current heads of state in the respective countries because they capitulated to US's pontificating (Eg: Canada PM has a growing anti incumbency for the next round of elections). India is making the right moves as of now (crazy huge solar fields and alliances, massive investments in public transport infra, LPG and electricity connections / supply to more households etc), but it'll take a decade at least for any of this to materialize into reduced emissions. (None of this is even factoring the pollution in China because of US's consumption of goods manufactured in China and transported to the US, which gives US kind of a free ticket to pontificate saying they are not the most most polluting country.)

CalRobert 8y ago

The planet will be just as warm if one person emits all the carbon as ten billion. Also, reducing your population growth rate is a great way to reduce carbon emissions. A world with 500 million people living in luxury is arguably better than one with 15 billion where the living envy the dead. Though you get to some key points. The most annoying issue is perhaps that China's emissions are largely a result of building crap for rich people in the US and Europe.

philipkglass 8y ago
It looks like exports from China are about 20% of GDP: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS It's possible but does not seem particularly likely that exports are more than 2.5x as GHG-intensive as the rest of the Chinese economy; that's what would be required for Chinese exports to account for the majority of Chinese GHG emissions. "They're just giving buyers what they demand" is not a good reason to shift blame from American corporate polluters to the consumers that buy their products. I don't see why export-oriented Chinese corporations should face less criticism for the same pollution. Both the benefits (increased market share) and the detriments (increased pollution) come from the same decisions these companies make about using dirty cheap energy.