5 ms·

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 ri

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).
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    Not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be concerned about logging, or waste, or environmentalism in general - especially given what I wrote. I am, for the record.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      glad to hear it :) but your comment concerned only greenhouse emissions, which is all I was addressing.

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).
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  Not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be concerned about logging, or waste, or environmentalism in general - especially given what I wrote. I am, for the record.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    glad to hear it :) but your comment concerned only greenhouse emissions, which is all I was addressing.