5 ms·

"Blame China" seems too simplistic, how much of their CO2 is because the rest of the world outsourced their production to China. So your shiny smartphone, or yo

"Blame China" seems too simplistic, how much of their CO2 is because the rest of the world outsourced their production to China. So your shiny smartphone, or your kids' Nerf guns, how much CO2 did their production cost, and to which nation's balance is it added to? If China started charging their factories to offset CO2, Apple and Nerf (or their suppliers) would just find the next country willing to host their polluting factories for a bit less money.

stanislavb 5y ago
I agree, all countries should stop outsourcing to China.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  That doesn't appear to be the parent comment's point at all. In fact they made almost exactly the opposite point: if we stopped outsourcing things to China then it wouldn't have an effect on overall carbon emissions.
rocknor 5y ago
Yup, consumption CO2 per capita is what matters: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus&=ind;;;;;;&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...
- roenxi 5y ago
  That is literally the opposite of what matters. Pollution only matters in absolute terms. The only reason per capita measures even enter the conversation is because we're all looking for a low pollution path to high energy consumption.
  - rocknor 5y ago
    We're talking about different things here. I said per capita matters because it helps us blame the correct people, and we certainly need to do that because there are >1B people in rich western countries that have an unfairly high CO2 footprint.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      It doesn't help you blame the right people. The majority of the problem is caused by people who are not them.
      - rocknor 5y ago
        Bullshit. Can clearly see your bias here. Why are you ignoring the emissions by the rich 1B people, they are the ones that can actually do something about it (reduce consumption and invest in research) thanks to their relatively luxurious lives. The others are just trying to survive - for them, consequences of climate change are still much better than the current state of poverty. The rest of the world has a very low carbon footprint per person, just that the population is much higher. How do you propose reducing the population, birth rates have already been dropping drastically across the globe and human population will peak at ~10B. Do you want to kill them off? Do you feel your life is more important than theirs?
        roenxi 5y ago
        I am very biased. But in this case, if the 1 billion "rich people" drop their emissions down to below average then the majority of the problem will still be here. And now there will be 1 billion less wealthy people for no particular net gain. > The rest of the world has a very low carbon footprint per person, just that the population is much higher. How do you propose reducing the population, birth rates have already been dropping drastically across the globe and human population will peak at ~10B. Do you want to kill them off? Do you feel your life is more important than theirs? I advocate the radical approach of encouraging people to have less children. If poor people had 0.5 children on average, then poverty would be eradicated quite quickly. An ever increasing population isn't necessary to have a comfortable life. And we could all emit more pollution per capita while living in a cleaner world.

stanislavb 5y ago

I agree, all countries should stop outsourcing to China.

quietbritishjim 5y ago
That doesn't appear to be the parent comment's point at all. In fact they made almost exactly the opposite point: if we stopped outsourcing things to China then it wouldn't have an effect on overall carbon emissions.

rocknor 5y ago

Yup, consumption CO2 per capita is what matters: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus&=ind;;;;;;&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...

roenxi 5y ago
That is literally the opposite of what matters. Pollution only matters in absolute terms. The only reason per capita measures even enter the conversation is because we're all looking for a low pollution path to high energy consumption.
- rocknor 5y ago
  We're talking about different things here. I said per capita matters because it helps us blame the correct people, and we certainly need to do that because there are >1B people in rich western countries that have an unfairly high CO2 footprint.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    It doesn't help you blame the right people. The majority of the problem is caused by people who are not them.
    - rocknor 5y ago
      Bullshit. Can clearly see your bias here. Why are you ignoring the emissions by the rich 1B people, they are the ones that can actually do something about it (reduce consumption and invest in research) thanks to their relatively luxurious lives. The others are just trying to survive - for them, consequences of climate change are still much better than the current state of poverty. The rest of the world has a very low carbon footprint per person, just that the population is much higher. How do you propose reducing the population, birth rates have already been dropping drastically across the globe and human population will peak at ~10B. Do you want to kill them off? Do you feel your life is more important than theirs?
      - roenxi 5y ago
        I am very biased. But in this case, if the 1 billion "rich people" drop their emissions down to below average then the majority of the problem will still be here. And now there will be 1 billion less wealthy people for no particular net gain. > The rest of the world has a very low carbon footprint per person, just that the population is much higher. How do you propose reducing the population, birth rates have already been dropping drastically across the globe and human population will peak at ~10B. Do you want to kill them off? Do you feel your life is more important than theirs? I advocate the radical approach of encouraging people to have less children. If poor people had 0.5 children on average, then poverty would be eradicated quite quickly. An ever increasing population isn't necessary to have a comfortable life. And we could all emit more pollution per capita while living in a cleaner world.