4 ms·

Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage

Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage to survive. Thus there isn't really a threat to anyone else. There's enough food to feed everyone, and the only problem remaining is political and with distribution. It would not be difficult or expensive to end world hunger, cents a person.

paganel 6y ago
> Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage to survive Countries like Denmark and Norway are a lot more detrimental to the planet's ecosystem because they consume a lot, lot more per capita compared to what Bangladesh does (and they consume lots of bad things that Bangladeshi people do not consume).
- liaukovv 6y ago
  But if you look at this from country abstraction level, what does it matter how much they consume per capita? All that matters is absolute number
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    If every country had the population of Norway, the globe would host just over 1 billion people. So then, would 1 billion Norweigans be better or worse than our current situation?
    - liaukovv 6y ago
      Who knows, considering developed countries produce science at higher rates the climate change might have already been solved.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    So countries like Luxembourg can continue to pollute because at an absolute level it doesn't matter but countries like India or China can't have any development because at an absolute level their emissions are huge. I can't see poorer countries accepting that argument.
- bildung 6y ago
  Why do single out exactly these two countries and not the dozens with higher footprint per capita? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecologica...
  - thefz 6y ago
    To conveniently leave out North America.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I'm always curious about this. Cambodia (for example) has a terrible rubbish problem. They burn their trash, and vast amounts of it get thrown in the Mekong river and washed out to sea. There's also a big problem with unlicensed forest logging, and all sorts of environmental concerns. This is, primarily, because poor people are too busy with immediate survival concerns to worry about their environment. Norway (for example) has a higher per-person consumption of resources, but also looks after its countryside and environment. What's the relative damage being done to the global environment? Is there an argument that raising people out of poverty will actually reduce their impact on the environment even though it increases their resource consumption?
  - samvher 6y ago
    Norway looks after its own countryside and environment. But it imports lots of stuff meaning it effectively has a pretty large footprint elsewhere. Also while Norway looks clean, that doesn't mean it's not affecting the environment negatively (e.g. greenhouse gases). Of course none of this is specific to Norway.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    It's pretty well known that when you look at individual consumptions habits, which account for overseas production emissions, there's a clear correlation between income and greenhouse gas emissions. Though it has been shown that some countries are beginning to reduce emissions while increasing GDP. Much of that shift could be explained by a global shift to renewables as they become the cheapest form of power, but this is a tide that lifts all boats, and the correlation remains. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-embedded-in-trade https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Yeah but emissions are only one part of the equation - logging a forest will produce more net atmospheric carbon than taking a long-haul plane trip, even though cutting down trees doesn't emit anything. The biggest carbon sink is the ocean, so doing things that damage the ocean (like dumping trash into a river) are more of a concern. There's also other environmental concerns than CO2 and climate change. Damaging jungle and ocean ecosystems creates other effects that we need to be concerned about (not least biodiversity losses from loss of habitat and population).
- greenwich26 6y ago
  Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each, while Danes and Norwegians were having less than 2. Why is that factor excluded from your assignment of which country is "more detrimental to the ecosystem"? The Bangladeshi behaviour of having 6 kids each from 1950-1990 is overall far more detrimental than the Norwegian behaviour of consuming a lot per capita.
  - g8oz 6y ago
    Per capita resource consumption dominates raw population to a surprisingly large extent. Bangladesh vs Denmark + Norway seems like a contrived example doesn't it? A population of 163 million for the former vs a combined 11 million for the latter. And yet total consumption based CO2 emissions are about equivalent. It's even worse when you look at production based emissions. Bangladesh emits less than half the total of CO2 vs Norway + Denmark. Take a look at this page and do the math: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each This is not true. That was true in 1950, started to drop in 1970. Now it is 2.04 kid per woman. And when you compare contemporary consumption of Danes, you have to compare it with contemporary consumption of Bangladeshis. Currently, the fertility rates are 1.73 vs 2.04 kid per woman. Which is much smaller difference.
lupire 6y ago
This is silly. If it only cost cents to feed a person, food wouldn't cost dollars.
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  A cup of rice and dry chickpeas will feed a person for cents.
  - watwut 6y ago
    You cant subsist on these only.
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      You could survive for a long time on this, and if you add cheap produce like carrots and beets for a few cents more you could survive indefinitely.
      - watwut 6y ago
        No, you would not.

paganel 6y ago

> Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage to survive Countries like Denmark and Norway are a lot more detrimental to the planet's ecosystem because they consume a lot, lot more per capita compared to what Bangladesh does (and they consume lots of bad things that Bangladeshi people do not consume).

liaukovv 6y ago
But if you look at this from country abstraction level, what does it matter how much they consume per capita? All that matters is absolute number
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  If every country had the population of Norway, the globe would host just over 1 billion people. So then, would 1 billion Norweigans be better or worse than our current situation?
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    Who knows, considering developed countries produce science at higher rates the climate change might have already been solved.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  So countries like Luxembourg can continue to pollute because at an absolute level it doesn't matter but countries like India or China can't have any development because at an absolute level their emissions are huge. I can't see poorer countries accepting that argument.
bildung 6y ago
Why do single out exactly these two countries and not the dozens with higher footprint per capita? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecologica...
- thefz 6y ago
  To conveniently leave out North America.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I'm always curious about this. Cambodia (for example) has a terrible rubbish problem. They burn their trash, and vast amounts of it get thrown in the Mekong river and washed out to sea. There's also a big problem with unlicensed forest logging, and all sorts of environmental concerns. This is, primarily, because poor people are too busy with immediate survival concerns to worry about their environment. Norway (for example) has a higher per-person consumption of resources, but also looks after its countryside and environment. What's the relative damage being done to the global environment? Is there an argument that raising people out of poverty will actually reduce their impact on the environment even though it increases their resource consumption?
- samvher 6y ago
  Norway looks after its own countryside and environment. But it imports lots of stuff meaning it effectively has a pretty large footprint elsewhere. Also while Norway looks clean, that doesn't mean it's not affecting the environment negatively (e.g. greenhouse gases). Of course none of this is specific to Norway.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  It's pretty well known that when you look at individual consumptions habits, which account for overseas production emissions, there's a clear correlation between income and greenhouse gas emissions. Though it has been shown that some countries are beginning to reduce emissions while increasing GDP. Much of that shift could be explained by a global shift to renewables as they become the cheapest form of power, but this is a tide that lifts all boats, and the correlation remains. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-embedded-in-trade https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Yeah but emissions are only one part of the equation - logging a forest will produce more net atmospheric carbon than taking a long-haul plane trip, even though cutting down trees doesn't emit anything. The biggest carbon sink is the ocean, so doing things that damage the ocean (like dumping trash into a river) are more of a concern. There's also other environmental concerns than CO2 and climate change. Damaging jungle and ocean ecosystems creates other effects that we need to be concerned about (not least biodiversity losses from loss of habitat and population).
greenwich26 6y ago
Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each, while Danes and Norwegians were having less than 2. Why is that factor excluded from your assignment of which country is "more detrimental to the ecosystem"? The Bangladeshi behaviour of having 6 kids each from 1950-1990 is overall far more detrimental than the Norwegian behaviour of consuming a lot per capita.
- g8oz 6y ago
  Per capita resource consumption dominates raw population to a surprisingly large extent. Bangladesh vs Denmark + Norway seems like a contrived example doesn't it? A population of 163 million for the former vs a combined 11 million for the latter. And yet total consumption based CO2 emissions are about equivalent. It's even worse when you look at production based emissions. Bangladesh emits less than half the total of CO2 vs Norway + Denmark. Take a look at this page and do the math: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
- watwut 6y ago
  > Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each This is not true. That was true in 1950, started to drop in 1970. Now it is 2.04 kid per woman. And when you compare contemporary consumption of Danes, you have to compare it with contemporary consumption of Bangladeshis. Currently, the fertility rates are 1.73 vs 2.04 kid per woman. Which is much smaller difference.

lupire 6y ago

This is silly. If it only cost cents to feed a person, food wouldn't cost dollars.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago
A cup of rice and dry chickpeas will feed a person for cents.
- watwut 6y ago
  You cant subsist on these only.
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    You could survive for a long time on this, and if you add cheap produce like carrots and beets for a few cents more you could survive indefinitely.
    - watwut 6y ago
      No, you would not.