5 ms·

* Swiss CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 4.17 * US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5 Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in th

* Swiss CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 4.17 * US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5 Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in the EU and much lower than Australia/Canada/US. Just for context.

ratsforhorses 5y ago
It would be interesting to see how much pollution is "externalised"... besides public transport and living density is a lot higher than most of the US, AUS or Canada... also how much pollution is caused by corporations from Switzerland...
- adamt 5y ago
  Switzerland is not that densely populated. It’s 219 per square km. For context Florida is about 150 and California about 100. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territori... https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-p...
  - samatman 5y ago
    Tangent, but there has to be a better way to measure population density than taking total area as the denominator and headcount as the numerator. Something like 'median density': sort citizens by local density, find the median, and report that. My guess is that California would have a higher number than Florida by that measure. I don't know about Switzerland vs. California, but that's the question I'd like to answer here!
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Another approach might be to start by subtracting land not available for most human uses for whatever reason, e.g. up on the Eiger, or in a large national park, or on a military reservation (places like Pendleton and Hunter Liggett immediately come to mind in California).
      - samatman 5y ago
        I'd guess those two approaches converge on a similar number, but using the median density is pure statistics, while removing unused land is more of a judgement call. The median approach does risk minor artifacts based on the divisions used to calculate density (census tracts in the United States), but since we're looking for a median value, and census tracts are pretty small, it should be reasonably precise.
hobofan 5y ago
> EU Europe, not the EU From a ballpark look, your numbers look to be production-based accounting. If you look at Switzerland with consumption-based accounting[0], it looks pretty bad with higher per-capita emissions, and an upward trend while other comparably rich European countries have a downward trend. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland#consumpti...
- belorn 5y ago
  If a country focus on reducing emissions from their industry, for whom does that improvement benefit? The producer or the importer? As an example, in north of Sweden there is a lot of focus on creating green steel, most which will be exported. With consumption-based accounting, all that investment will have close to zero impact on the Swedish efforts to reduce CO2, as otherwise we would have double accounting. Consumption-based accounting has it uses but one need to be very careful in interpreting them. A country that has a lot of coal power plants should not be seen as decreasing their pollution if they suddenly start to export most of it. Some blame should be put at the consumer end, but the primary focus must sit on those who actually pollute the environment.
rocknor 5y ago
Nope. Look at the consumption CO2 emissions: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus;;;;;;&encoding$y$data$concept=consumption_emissions_tonnes_per_person&space@=country&=time;;&scale$type=linear&domain:null&zoomed:null;;&frame$value=2017;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1 https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...
choeger 5y ago
Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. Switzerland (and to some degree the rest of Europe) have mostly only the hard parts left, while the US can significantly reduce emissions with relatively simple measures (e.g., building standards). But that only postpones the really difficult reductions to a point when there's no more time to negotiate. So it looks quite unlikely the US will be carbon neutral by 2050.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people. It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.
  - choeger 5y ago
    The EU has decided to be carbon neutral by 2050. That doesn't mean they will succeed, of course, but it's still somewhat bold to claim "no country will". Also the USA have reentered the Paris climate accords. So at least the current government commits to decarbonisation. I think there will be a significant problem for free trade when some nations put effort into decarbonisation and others do not and continue to use cheap energy. I do not, for instance, think that the EU will simply roll over and let relatively cheap US products flood the market when their own companies are not competitive anymore.

ratsforhorses 5y ago

It would be interesting to see how much pollution is "externalised"... besides public transport and living density is a lot higher than most of the US, AUS or Canada... also how much pollution is caused by corporations from Switzerland...

adamt 5y ago
Switzerland is not that densely populated. It’s 219 per square km. For context Florida is about 150 and California about 100. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territori... https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-p...
- samatman 5y ago
  Tangent, but there has to be a better way to measure population density than taking total area as the denominator and headcount as the numerator. Something like 'median density': sort citizens by local density, find the median, and report that. My guess is that California would have a higher number than Florida by that measure. I don't know about Switzerland vs. California, but that's the question I'd like to answer here!
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Another approach might be to start by subtracting land not available for most human uses for whatever reason, e.g. up on the Eiger, or in a large national park, or on a military reservation (places like Pendleton and Hunter Liggett immediately come to mind in California).
    - samatman 5y ago
      I'd guess those two approaches converge on a similar number, but using the median density is pure statistics, while removing unused land is more of a judgement call. The median approach does risk minor artifacts based on the divisions used to calculate density (census tracts in the United States), but since we're looking for a median value, and census tracts are pretty small, it should be reasonably precise.

hobofan 5y ago

> EU Europe, not the EU From a ballpark look, your numbers look to be production-based accounting. If you look at Switzerland with consumption-based accounting[0], it looks pretty bad with higher per-capita emissions, and an upward trend while other comparably rich European countries have a downward trend. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland#consumpti...

belorn 5y ago
If a country focus on reducing emissions from their industry, for whom does that improvement benefit? The producer or the importer? As an example, in north of Sweden there is a lot of focus on creating green steel, most which will be exported. With consumption-based accounting, all that investment will have close to zero impact on the Swedish efforts to reduce CO2, as otherwise we would have double accounting. Consumption-based accounting has it uses but one need to be very careful in interpreting them. A country that has a lot of coal power plants should not be seen as decreasing their pollution if they suddenly start to export most of it. Some blame should be put at the consumer end, but the primary focus must sit on those who actually pollute the environment.

rocknor 5y ago

Nope. Look at the consumption CO2 emissions: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus;;;;;;&encoding$y$data$concept=consumption_emissions_tonnes_per_person&space@=country&=time;;&scale$type=linear&domain:null&zoomed:null;;&frame$value=2017;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1 https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...

choeger 5y ago

Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. Switzerland (and to some degree the rest of Europe) have mostly only the hard parts left, while the US can significantly reduce emissions with relatively simple measures (e.g., building standards). But that only postpones the really difficult reductions to a point when there's no more time to negotiate. So it looks quite unlikely the US will be carbon neutral by 2050.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people. It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.
- choeger 5y ago
  The EU has decided to be carbon neutral by 2050. That doesn't mean they will succeed, of course, but it's still somewhat bold to claim "no country will". Also the USA have reentered the Paris climate accords. So at least the current government commits to decarbonisation. I think there will be a significant problem for free trade when some nations put effort into decarbonisation and others do not and continue to use cheap energy. I do not, for instance, think that the EU will simply roll over and let relatively cheap US products flood the market when their own companies are not competitive anymore.