3 ms·
I’ve always wondered how much standardisation there is in reporting these types of numbers, particularly with regard to countries, albeit not enough to actually
by austhrow743 6y ago
I’ve always wondered how much standardisation there is in reporting these types of numbers, particularly with regard to countries, albeit not enough to actually look in to it.
Say Australia digs up some coal, ships it to China, it’s used to power factories and smelters to produce goods, then those goods are shipped to and used by Americans. Is there consensus on who the pollution from burning coal gets tied to? Or does it vary per report and article?
- my123 6y agoIt gets tied to China, for better or worse.
- tinco 6y agoIt goes to China, because it is the one that can change it. But that's when you're looking at the output of countries. What you could also do is look at the output of individual persons, and then you could more easily attribute the CO2 to the American. Sustainable energy without the hot air does this, it's a great book though I've heard it's somewhat outdated now.
- catawbasam 6y agoThe analytic approach is great, but the numbers are very out of date.
- ianstormtaylor 6y agoIt depends on what type of accounting is being used. If it’s a production-based accounting then they’ll be attributed to China. But if it’s a bottom-up, consumption-based accounting then they’ll be attributed to the consumer in the United States. It’s great that both approaches exist, because they surface different conclusions. If you want to see where the actual emissions are being emitted, or what “industry” they’re from, then the production-based accounting will give you that. If you instead want to see what different consumer-level behaviors are responsible for most emissions then you’ll need a consumption-based accounting. That duality is what makes it hard for people to grok carbon accounting estimates sometimes.