3 ms·

Your presenter is obviously wrong. The US ans Europe with far smaller populations have significantly greater climate footprints than China and India, for examp

Your presenter is obviously wrong. The US ans Europe with far smaller populations have significantly greater climate footprints than China and India, for example. And that’s before we adjust for the fact that a lot of China’s footprint is US/European footprint outsourced to China. Indians having fewer kids will do nothing to reduce the already too large impact of the existing US/European populations. Also the idea that women empowerment will help with reducing kids is decades old. If your audience was surprised by this, then they are clearly not well versed in any related topics.

MagnumOpus 6y ago
> The US ans Europe with far smaller populations have significantly greater climate footprints than China That was true twenty years ago. After two decades of decarbonisation in the west and the opposite in China, China emits far more CO2 than the US and the EU taken together. And even per capita, China has been emitting more than the EU for the last 5 years or more. (Yes, the US emissions per capita are still ridiculous.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- cudgy 6y ago
  It wasn’t “decarbonization” that caused the shift, it was the “deconstruction” of the Western manufacturing complex. China assumed the environmental pollution of the previously significant manufacturing industry of the United States and other countries that succumbed to the short-sighted leaders of manufacturing companies who were riding the globalist wave of the last 30-40 years.
cipher_system 6y ago
What was the presenter wrong about? And can't both be true? Developed countries need to reduce per capita emissions and developing countries need to reduce capita increase. 1000 * 1 = 100 * 10 and 2000 * 1 > 100 * 10. Also on the plus side, reducing excessive population growth will reduce local resource need and thus local resource wars.

MagnumOpus 6y ago

> The US ans Europe with far smaller populations have significantly greater climate footprints than China That was true twenty years ago. After two decades of decarbonisation in the west and the opposite in China, China emits far more CO2 than the US and the EU taken together. And even per capita, China has been emitting more than the EU for the last 5 years or more. (Yes, the US emissions per capita are still ridiculous.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

cudgy 6y ago
It wasn’t “decarbonization” that caused the shift, it was the “deconstruction” of the Western manufacturing complex. China assumed the environmental pollution of the previously significant manufacturing industry of the United States and other countries that succumbed to the short-sighted leaders of manufacturing companies who were riding the globalist wave of the last 30-40 years.

cipher_system 6y ago

What was the presenter wrong about? And can't both be true? Developed countries need to reduce per capita emissions and developing countries need to reduce capita increase. 1000 * 1 = 100 * 10 and 2000 * 1 > 100 * 10. Also on the plus side, reducing excessive population growth will reduce local resource need and thus local resource wars.