4 ms·

You have to look at who is polluting the most. If country A represents 2x the emissions of country B, then it's twice as important to curb their pollution. Cou

You have to look at who is polluting the most. If country A represents 2x the emissions of country B, then it's twice as important to curb their pollution. Country borders mean nothing to the planet in ecological terms. How about looking at emissions per square kilometer as a target, but focusing treaty efforts on the largest CO2 emitting countries (or coalitions of countries that can be dealt with as a block)?

vkou 6y ago
> If country A represents 2x the emissions of country B, then it's twice as important to curb their pollution. Capping emissions per capita accomplishes just that. Why are you so opposed to it? > How about looking at emissions per square kilometer as a target So, Canada (Population 38 million) should get to pollute three times more, in absolute values than India (Population 1.35 billion), because it has three times the land area? > Country borders mean nothing to the planet in ecological terms. Country borders don't mean anything to the planet, but they mean everything to how we must solve this problem. People need energy to live. The world has a limited carbon budget. Distributing it equally, per capita is the least you can do to be fair about it. (In order to actually be fair about it, you must also count historic emissions, which means that the western world has long blown its share of that budget.)
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  You're confusing is with ought. It's not that Canada "should get to" pollute more than India. Canada can pollute more than India and still have the effects absorbed by its environment. Canada has vast forests absorbing CO2 on a scale sufficient to mostly counteract the harmful effects caused by its relatively sparse population. India doesn't have those vast forests, and its population is enormous. I'm making no claim that it should be this way. It is this way. Despite emitting more CO2 per capita, Canada is putting a negligible strain on the planet compared to India, the US, or especially China.

vkou 6y ago

> If country A represents 2x the emissions of country B, then it's twice as important to curb their pollution. Capping emissions per capita accomplishes just that. Why are you so opposed to it? > How about looking at emissions per square kilometer as a target So, Canada (Population 38 million) should get to pollute three times more, in absolute values than India (Population 1.35 billion), because it has three times the land area? > Country borders mean nothing to the planet in ecological terms. Country borders don't mean anything to the planet, but they mean everything to how we must solve this problem. People need energy to live. The world has a limited carbon budget. Distributing it equally, per capita is the least you can do to be fair about it. (In order to actually be fair about it, you must also count historic emissions, which means that the western world has long blown its share of that budget.)

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
You're confusing is with ought. It's not that Canada "should get to" pollute more than India. Canada can pollute more than India and still have the effects absorbed by its environment. Canada has vast forests absorbing CO2 on a scale sufficient to mostly counteract the harmful effects caused by its relatively sparse population. India doesn't have those vast forests, and its population is enormous. I'm making no claim that it should be this way. It is this way. Despite emitting more CO2 per capita, Canada is putting a negligible strain on the planet compared to India, the US, or especially China.