4 ms·

About half of the US currently. China - ~7 tons CO2 per capita US - ~15 tons CO2 per capita You have to discount the China figure further though because of th

About half of the US currently. China - ~7 tons CO2 per capita US - ~15 tons CO2 per capita You have to discount the China figure further though because of the balance of goods made in China (and thus CO2 produced) and shipped to the US. I.e. the 15 tons per capita hides the outsourced emissions. Or you could go for the simpler analysis - which country has huge swathes of it’s population running AC, heating, huge cars and a “disposable” approach to manufactured goods consumption.

swader999 5y ago
Per capita doesn't really matter to the temp.
- bgee 5y ago
  You are correct that per capita doesn't matter to the global climate but it's only relevant because regulations are enforced on a nation-based fashion. As a Chinese national living in the U.S., I would like my fellow countryperson to have the same standard of living as an average American does. Unfortunately this view is not shared by many Americans, including Obama [0]. [0] "...if over a billion Chinese citizens have the same living patterns as Australians and Americans do right now then all of us are in for a very miserable time, the planet just can't sustain it": https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/face-to-face-with-obama/2673356 https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/face-to-face-with-obama/2673356
- ahelwer 5y ago
  Our objective is to support the most humans with the least environmental impact, so yeah it does matter - unless you believe certain lives worldwide have more of a right to exist than others?
  - swader999 5y ago
    I honestly believe that carbon and energy are life and to deny or limit is a crime. We are not facing dire climate change. Humans have and will continue to adapt to 1-3mm of sea level rise per year. It's not an existential threat.
    - revax 5y ago
      >It's not an existential threat For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive. But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.
      - swader999 5y ago
        The models projecting the dire 2100 scenario just aren't fit for that purpose. They are useless. Rewind them 5, 10, 30 years, start with all the known inputs. Guess what, they fail this kind of back testing. They can't predict anything. And none of the different models agree either. If you look at extreme heat events, they haven't changed over the last 150 years. The last thirty years have seen slightly milder winters in the northern hemisphere. That article admits the data on heat deaths is poor, therefore it can't conclude much of anything except to speculate about bogus model extremes.
        revax 5y ago
        Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.
        swader999 5y ago
        Specifically, look at the USGCRP Climate Science Special Assessment: Volume 1: Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ Scroll down to figure 6.3. You can see that the 1920's to 1940's had more extreme heat events than any time since. Figure 6.4 is also useful to look at. IPCC AR5 WGI Section 2.6.2.3 says they have "low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the century" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_f... As far as model's go, gosh where to begin... Read the closing remarks here. They admit in far to many words cooking the books or 'tuning' the model to fit what they observed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS002037 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... Another book examining albedo modification admits their futility: "The uncertainties in modeling of both climate change and the consequences of albedo modification make it impossible today to provide reliable, quantitative statements about relative risks, consequences, and benefits of albedo modification to the Earth system as a whole, let alone benefits and risks to specific regions of the planet." source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 Or just find the climate gate code from a few years back and see how horrendous it is for yourself.
- revax 5y ago
  Then I have a easy solution, split China in ten countries. Of course, per capita is not the only criteria to be considered but, those who emit the most per capita and profited the most from fossil fuels should be an example to the world.

swader999 5y ago

Per capita doesn't really matter to the temp.

bgee 5y ago
You are correct that per capita doesn't matter to the global climate but it's only relevant because regulations are enforced on a nation-based fashion. As a Chinese national living in the U.S., I would like my fellow countryperson to have the same standard of living as an average American does. Unfortunately this view is not shared by many Americans, including Obama [0]. [0] "...if over a billion Chinese citizens have the same living patterns as Australians and Americans do right now then all of us are in for a very miserable time, the planet just can't sustain it": https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/face-to-face-with-obama/2673356 https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/face-to-face-with-obama/2673356
ahelwer 5y ago
Our objective is to support the most humans with the least environmental impact, so yeah it does matter - unless you believe certain lives worldwide have more of a right to exist than others?
- swader999 5y ago
  I honestly believe that carbon and energy are life and to deny or limit is a crime. We are not facing dire climate change. Humans have and will continue to adapt to 1-3mm of sea level rise per year. It's not an existential threat.
  - revax 5y ago
    >It's not an existential threat For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive. But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.
    - swader999 5y ago
      The models projecting the dire 2100 scenario just aren't fit for that purpose. They are useless. Rewind them 5, 10, 30 years, start with all the known inputs. Guess what, they fail this kind of back testing. They can't predict anything. And none of the different models agree either. If you look at extreme heat events, they haven't changed over the last 150 years. The last thirty years have seen slightly milder winters in the northern hemisphere. That article admits the data on heat deaths is poor, therefore it can't conclude much of anything except to speculate about bogus model extremes.
      - revax 5y ago
        Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.
        swader999 5y ago
        Specifically, look at the USGCRP Climate Science Special Assessment: Volume 1: Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ Scroll down to figure 6.3. You can see that the 1920's to 1940's had more extreme heat events than any time since. Figure 6.4 is also useful to look at. IPCC AR5 WGI Section 2.6.2.3 says they have "low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the century" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_f... As far as model's go, gosh where to begin... Read the closing remarks here. They admit in far to many words cooking the books or 'tuning' the model to fit what they observed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS002037 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... Another book examining albedo modification admits their futility: "The uncertainties in modeling of both climate change and the consequences of albedo modification make it impossible today to provide reliable, quantitative statements about relative risks, consequences, and benefits of albedo modification to the Earth system as a whole, let alone benefits and risks to specific regions of the planet." source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39 Or just find the climate gate code from a few years back and see how horrendous it is for yourself.
revax 5y ago
Then I have a easy solution, split China in ten countries. Of course, per capita is not the only criteria to be considered but, those who emit the most per capita and profited the most from fossil fuels should be an example to the world.