9 ms·
China emissions exceed all developed nations combined
- jokoon 5y agoI'm still curious to do this carbon accounting when you consider exports. This gets much more complicated but it would draw a fair picture.
- _Microft 5y agoHere are graphs for the US, China and Germany. You could add all three to a single graph but it is bugged and does not show which curve belongs to which country then. Better show them side by side in different windows: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption... This is the article belonging to these graphs (you can choose countries yourself and have all graphs in the article be change according to your choice): https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- MikeUt 5y ago> when you consider exports. Exports aren't a gift - they get something in return for them, just as for other economic activity. So why would you not consider their emissions?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Udik 5y agoBecause in fairness, the blame for the emissions should fall on those who consume, not on those who produce. It's like blaming co2 emissions on fossil fuel companies, while you keep happily driving around your big car and flying across the world for holidays.
- MikeUt 5y ago> It's like blaming co2 emissions on fossil fuel companies But it's not. In this scheme, the emissions get assigned to the people driving, and not to the oil companies (except the emissions produced during oil extraction). The "don't count exports" scheme is easy to fool. Focus your economy into products that require high emissions to produce (and don't bother trying to reduce these emissions, that way you can undercut foreign markets better), export them, import low emissions products, and you get the moral high-ground that, once your exports are ignored, you're producing little emissions, even as those exports enrich you.
- totalZero 5y agoThe consumer countries have no direct regulatory power, so they cannot force China to abide by their domestic best practices for scrubbing of flue gases, waste treatment, and other environmental considerations. There's a moral hazard involved due to our race to the bottom mentality where cheaper is always considered as better, but blame for Chinese behavior rests with China.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoSo pay more and manufacture at home instead of buying from China. Why blame China for your own behavior?
- totalZero 5y agoIt seems quite clear that they are holding China responsible for its own behavior. They have the leverage to do so because China benefits from their consumer appetite.
- jokoon 5y agoSame answer that the other gave, in my words: Emissions are an external cost, meaning its information is lost in the price of making something. If a country produces a lot of goods that are carbon intensive and export them, the country who import those goods cannot really calculate the carbon emission of those goods with precision. They can do estimates. This is why accusing china of being a large emitter is wrong for several reasons: * they are the factory of the world, they export a lot of stuff * their emission per capita is lower compared to developed countries Even though it's true that China could switch to nuclear energy, although they already have a lot of it.
- platinumrad 5y agoNow do emissions per capita.
- splithalf 5y agoThe climate doesn’t care about per capita though. If more than half of all coal plants are in China, then China needs to change if we have any hope of moving the needle. All the other countries can change but it won’t matter.
- rsj_hn 5y agoSome people are interested in carbon-accounting, others are interested in moral-accounting. What the moral accounters may not realize is that their accounting is rarely useful for solving problems, and is often actively harmful. The first step to making progress in many areas is to say "OK, let's forget about trying to find someone to blame".
- ancientworldnow 5y agoWrong. Carbon accounting suggests it's easier to make cuts in the people who are using the most as they have far more fat to trim and you can get dramatically greater reductions in environmental damage with much smaller impact to overall. standard of living This is both the moral and practical solution, it's just not what people want to hear.
- rsj_hn 5y agoWell, good luck with that.
- josephcsible 5y agoNo it doesn't. The problem is that there aren't enough "people who are using the most" to make any substantial difference. This is the same flaw in the argument that we should fix inequality in America by just taking 90% of the billionaires' money: we'd run out of billionaires after only paying a few months' rent for everyone.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwawayy12 5y agoIn other words: "Despite being world factory China's emission per capita is only 57% of US's"
- rsj_hn 5y agoOf course China is going to be emitting more carbon, they are trying to climb their way up to first world living standards. And why not, they have the human capital, they have the will, and they have the organizational capacity to make it happen. They are not going to let the hangups of the West be a roadblock on that march. Neither, for that matter, will India. These types of worries are strictly for the West, and third world nations participate in the global warming outcry because they see an opportunity for obtaining subsidies from this project. The moment there are costs instead of subsidies, and third world nations are portrayed as perpetrators deserving of fines instead of victims deserving of subsidies, you will see the developing world rapidly lose interest in this project of curtailing carbon emissions. It will be absolutely hilarious when people in the West realize that none of these nations are their allies in the fight against global warming, that everyone in the developing world is far more interested in improving their economy once the spigot of subsidies is cut off. China is worried about technological progress, employment, and social stability. Everything else is nice-to-have. I don't blame them.
- magicsmoke 5y agoGlobal warming is going to hit everyone, developed or developing. The fact that China and other developing nations know this but are still willing to take the incoming damage just shows how much it sucks to be a undeveloped country. But for developed countries what probably sucks more is that this is a problem they cannot solve without the help and sacrifice of the poor majority of the world, and the carbon poor would love nothing more than watch the carbon rich suffer the same pain as them. For once, the developed world is at the mercy of decisions made in the developing world, and suddenly they have to try and appease instead of ignore or bully. That cannot be a comfortable realization.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> "For once, the developed world is at the mercy of decisions made in the developing world, and suddenly they have to try and appease instead of ignore or bully. That cannot be a comfortable realization." Well, that is certainly one way of looking at things. I have never encountered anyone who actually believes that, until now. The fact of the matter is that most people don't care a whole lot about global warming one way or another. Not in the U.S. Not in Europe, and certainly not in China. To be clear, I'm not saying that, if asked, "Do you care?" that they respond "No, I don't care." People like to view themselves as caring about things. The answer to "Do you care about X" is usually "Of course I care." - at least when you are asked by a stranger. But if asked "How much are you willing to spend", the answer is usually "very little.". So the revealed preferences in the US are not too different from revealed preferences in China. 68% of Americans wouldn't pay more than $10 a month to combat climate change. That's to "combat", not even "solve". So I don't think most people are unsettled or even surprised at China ignoring climate change. If we are only willing to pay less than $120 per year, then you would expect a nation with 1/3 our income to be willing to spend very little. Think of all the ridiculous things Americans spend $10 a month on. Then draw a line and put global warming below that line. So an objective assessment doesn't lead to any uncomfortable truths other than there is only a minority that is truly concerned about this issue, and that such concern appears to be a luxury good even in the West, and therefore will not be a major factor in the developing world. An even cursory awareness of what's going on in the world would have made this very clear a long time ago to anyone who was willing to look outside their own social circle.
- coward76 5y agoIf you don't like it, stop buying manufactured goods there. Supply stops when demand drys up.
- zackees 5y agoNo, this won’t do any good. People at scale have to be nudged by price before they change their buying habits. China pollutes with reckless abandon and US manufacturing has been hollowed out because of cheap manufacturing. The cost savings in china includes being free to pollute and extremely low labor costs, and other factors.
- daenz 5y agoThis is a really flippant comment if you've actually tried vet the country of origin for the things you buy. It can be near impossible.
- twobitshifter 5y agoEasier said then done. Check out https://www.reddit.com/r/NotMadeInChina/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NotMadeInChina/ for some cases where you can get a nmic product, but if you go to a store to shop or even shop on Amazon, it’s increasingly difficult. Amazon doesn’t even show country of origin, so you usually have to go to the Q&A to see if it’s been answered. Almost certainly it will say something like, “our products are proudly designed by our team in Sweden and manufactured by our partner in China.”
- coward76 5y agoWe could build some blueprint legislation for states that has country of origin and stick it on a website. After that we could rally our state legislature to use our blueprint. It would be easier to go that route than federally. Look at what California does with emissions standards and cancer causing items. States have power.
- baby 5y agoChina has enough people to consume their own goods.
- kenned3 5y agoThis is why i am grateful our ass-hat of a prime minsiter has carbon taxes and overcommits us to "green" programs.. because if every one of the 32 million canadians reaced zero emissions, woudl the world even notice? Look, i am all for "green" programs, but over-taxing us isnt the answer, our contribution is minimal.. we would be far better off helping others get off coal.
- codefined 5y agoCanada is the eighth highest emissions producing country per capita. You're only just better than the USA in seventh place. You're nowhere near 'good'.
- gedy 5y agoPer capita really doesn't matter to the Earth, just politics
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoPer capita matters as a matter of fairness. Telling large poor countries they have too suck it up so smaller rich countries don’t have to solve the problem isn’t going to work.
- gedy 5y agoThat's fine and agreed, but my point still stands that per capita based on some arbitrary borders is not a meaningful measure to the entire Earth's climate.
- pksebben 5y agoper capita is precisely the opposite of arbitrary; it's carbon per person.
- josephcsible 5y ago
- vnchr 5y agoI don’t understand. They signed the Paris Accords.
- raarts 5y agoThe Paris Accords are mostly non-binding on substance but binding on reporting. And rely on naming and shaming. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/02/paris-climate-deal-legally-binding-not/ https://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/02/paris-climate-d...
- quantum_state 5y agoWhat is the per capita number? That’s more proper measure ...
- g8oz 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- officialjunk 5y agois there a data set that has cumulative totals for each nation?
- quantum_state 5y agoPer capita charts: China |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| US |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| India |||||||||| EU-27 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Indonesia |||||||||||||||||||||||||| Russia |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Brazil |||||||||||||||||||||||||| Japan ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- codefined 5y agoAdd two spaces to the eend ofr line to ensure the new lines are kept: China |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| US |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| India |||||||||| EU-27 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Indonesia |||||||||||||||||||||||||| Russia |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Brazil |||||||||||||||||||||||||| Japan ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 5y agoWhy is this relevant? The Earth doesn't care about per capita emissions. Only total emissions affect global warming.
- opportune 5y agoIt’s only fair to compare countries based on a per capita basis. Otherwise you are letting some people pollute much more than others because of imaginary lines on a globe
- josephcsible 5y agoIs being "fair" more important than stopping global warming? And besides, most pollution comes from industry, not from individuals.
- OldGoodNewBad 5y agoKinda makes the Paris climate agreement look stupid. If only there was an agreement which would force China to reduce emissions.
- asquabventured 5y agoOrange man was right?
- addicted 5y agoChinas population also likely exceeds all developed nations combined. And further, it would be interesting to see how much of the emissions are driven by products and services for developed nations.
- rdlecler1 5y agoThere are 1.1b people in developed nations and about 1.4b in China. Of course china’s emissions exceed all developed nations combined.
- refurb 5y agoThere is a lot more to emissions than just number of people. What about economic output?