4 ms·

China's CO2 production per capita is half of that of US ... and their total emission is already double that of the US. Are you saying China take no action unti

China's CO2 production per capita is half of that of US ... and their total emission is already double that of the US. Are you saying China take no action until they achieve parity per capita? I can think of no other reason you would mention “per capita”.

tzs 7y ago
This has been explained to you before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596722
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Nice condescension, but the "per capita" argument is still complete nonsense. When China achieves parity "per capita" with the US - which it is on track to do within the next decade - but with 4x the population, will you finally understand?
  - tzs 7y ago
    Unless you can make the case that the average person in the US is entitled to put more CO2 into the globally shared atmosphere than the average person in China, per capita is the only way to fairly access whether a country is contributing more or less than its fair share. Yes, it would be bad if Chinese per capita use rose to match US per capita use, because US per capita use is already way over what is sustainable globally.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      The environment doesn’t care what anyone is “entitled” to and the West knows this and is a case study about how hard it is to reduce. I find it bizarre that anyone suggests it’s sensible for China to get there and only then start to reduce, because they are “entitled to”. Of course, the West is already on that downward trend and China is soaring upwards with no signs of even plateauing. Within 10 years China will be technologically independent of the West and the West will have even less influence over its environmental policy than we do now.
      - tzs 7y ago
        > I find it bizarre that anyone suggests it’s sensible for China to get there and only then start to reduce, because they are “entitled to” No one has suggested that. You, however, have suggested that there is no point in the US lowering its emissions because China emits more total than does the US. The atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. There's a total amount of greenhouse gases we can put in it consistent with keeping global warming under any given target. A ton of CO2 from a person in China is the same as a ton of CO2 from a person in the US as far as the atmosphere is concerned. So if a random person in China being responsible for putting about 8 tons in per year is unacceptable, then by what logic is a random person in the US putting in over 16 tons a year fine? By every physical measure, that US person is doing at least twice the harm to the atmosphere. The US needs to be the leader on this, not making excuses not to reduce its own emissions.
        edflsafoiewq 7y ago
        Which is exactly why there is no difference between sixteen tons from eight people and sixteen tons from sixteen people. The emissions per capita alone is totally meaningless. The reason that per country emissions are important is that countries are convenient political and demographic units.

tzs 7y ago

This has been explained to you before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596722

goatinaboat 7y ago
Nice condescension, but the "per capita" argument is still complete nonsense. When China achieves parity "per capita" with the US - which it is on track to do within the next decade - but with 4x the population, will you finally understand?
- tzs 7y ago
  Unless you can make the case that the average person in the US is entitled to put more CO2 into the globally shared atmosphere than the average person in China, per capita is the only way to fairly access whether a country is contributing more or less than its fair share. Yes, it would be bad if Chinese per capita use rose to match US per capita use, because US per capita use is already way over what is sustainable globally.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    The environment doesn’t care what anyone is “entitled” to and the West knows this and is a case study about how hard it is to reduce. I find it bizarre that anyone suggests it’s sensible for China to get there and only then start to reduce, because they are “entitled to”. Of course, the West is already on that downward trend and China is soaring upwards with no signs of even plateauing. Within 10 years China will be technologically independent of the West and the West will have even less influence over its environmental policy than we do now.
    - tzs 7y ago
      > I find it bizarre that anyone suggests it’s sensible for China to get there and only then start to reduce, because they are “entitled to” No one has suggested that. You, however, have suggested that there is no point in the US lowering its emissions because China emits more total than does the US. The atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. There's a total amount of greenhouse gases we can put in it consistent with keeping global warming under any given target. A ton of CO2 from a person in China is the same as a ton of CO2 from a person in the US as far as the atmosphere is concerned. So if a random person in China being responsible for putting about 8 tons in per year is unacceptable, then by what logic is a random person in the US putting in over 16 tons a year fine? By every physical measure, that US person is doing at least twice the harm to the atmosphere. The US needs to be the leader on this, not making excuses not to reduce its own emissions.
      - edflsafoiewq 7y ago
        Which is exactly why there is no difference between sixteen tons from eight people and sixteen tons from sixteen people. The emissions per capita alone is totally meaningless. The reason that per country emissions are important is that countries are convenient political and demographic units.