4 ms·

Not necessarily. Africa, with 1.+2 billion inhabitants, has a tiny carbon footprint compared to the US (which as less than 1/3 of Africa's population). Source

Not necessarily. Africa, with 1.+2 billion inhabitants, has a tiny carbon footprint compared to the US (which as less than 1/3 of Africa's population). Source: https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/factsheet_africa.pdf https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf...

mytailorisrich 7y ago
They have a tiny carbon footprint because they are overwhelmingly poor compared to the West (granted, the US have a particularly large footprint). So either we tell them that, sorry, but they have to stay dirt poor and also to stay away from their rain forests even if they starve, or the aim is to eradicate poverty on the planet, but in that latter case their resources footprint (this is more general than carbon alone) is bound to increase. That's why the global population is a key factor in fighting climate change and protecting the environment.
- dagss 7y ago
  Only a (smallish) portion of the western carbon footprint is directly correlated with having a decent life. Yes, the entire world cannot buy larger cars than what we need them for, we cannot fly around the world on vacations, we cannot throw away half the food we produce, we cannot buy clothes to use them once, and so on. Such needless things, often more related to consumption culture than living standards, is responsible for a large portion of emissions. Not only that, but we live in societies with an enormous capital in infrastructure built up from previous emissions. I think westerners should at least start thinking about not emitting CO2 just for the fun of it, before telling others to not have too many children.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    I would dispute your claim that our resources (again, it's not just about carbon) footprint is not directly correlated to basic standard of living. But the key issue with your reply is that this is not 'us' doing this versus 'them' doing that. We must reduce CO2 emissions and we must stop population growth. Both 'we' mean humankind as a whole.
eej2ya1K 7y ago
This is true, but people are not staying in Africa.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

They have a tiny carbon footprint because they are overwhelmingly poor compared to the West (granted, the US have a particularly large footprint). So either we tell them that, sorry, but they have to stay dirt poor and also to stay away from their rain forests even if they starve, or the aim is to eradicate poverty on the planet, but in that latter case their resources footprint (this is more general than carbon alone) is bound to increase. That's why the global population is a key factor in fighting climate change and protecting the environment.

dagss 7y ago
Only a (smallish) portion of the western carbon footprint is directly correlated with having a decent life. Yes, the entire world cannot buy larger cars than what we need them for, we cannot fly around the world on vacations, we cannot throw away half the food we produce, we cannot buy clothes to use them once, and so on. Such needless things, often more related to consumption culture than living standards, is responsible for a large portion of emissions. Not only that, but we live in societies with an enormous capital in infrastructure built up from previous emissions. I think westerners should at least start thinking about not emitting CO2 just for the fun of it, before telling others to not have too many children.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  I would dispute your claim that our resources (again, it's not just about carbon) footprint is not directly correlated to basic standard of living. But the key issue with your reply is that this is not 'us' doing this versus 'them' doing that. We must reduce CO2 emissions and we must stop population growth. Both 'we' mean humankind as a whole.

eej2ya1K 7y ago

This is true, but people are not staying in Africa.