3 ms·

Here are the per-capita numbers btw : India 1.91 United States 15.52 China 7.38 Australia 17.10 Please stop blaming India and China without much research.

by seaman1921 5y ago

randomperson_24 5y ago
Exactly!
Smithalicious 5y ago
Is it fair to extrapolate like that? Does "reasonable" pollution scale linearly with population, or can we expect large countries to be more efficient because of economies of scale? Genuinely curious
- kergonath 5y ago
  If you compare the US to any European country you’ll see that really is not the case.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Most things don't have significant economies of scale beyond a fairly small country (maybe the size of England). The 3 biggest polluters are electricity&heat, agriculture and transport. - Electricity and heat benefit from a bigger electricity network (e.g. to get more reliable solar and wind), but electrical grids don't necessarily follow borders. The US has about 3 grids, continental Europe has a grid spanning 24 countries. (in fact, there's almost no grids that span exactly one country [1]) - Agriculture doesn't hugely benefit from economies of scale beyond the regional level - Transport benefits mostly from rail networks, which aren't really bound to borders You can make a case that population density helps (most obvious in the case of transport, but it is really helpful for lots of things), and being an island makes electricity harder. But in the case of Australia, it has to be noted that the negative effect on electricity from being an island is somewhat lessened by their vast area, and the negative effect of low population density on transport emissions is somewhat lessened by most Australians actually living in pretty high density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wide_area_synchronous_grid_(Eurasia,_Mediterranean).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wide_area_synchronous_gri...
nicoburns 5y ago
Some further numbers: EU avg. 7.0 UK 5.3
KptMarchewa 5y ago
Does that include fact that Australia is the biggest net exporter of coal, or do the get free pass for that?
- fruityrudy 5y ago
  Net exports contribute 3% global CO2 emissions.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    A lot for country with 0.3% of global population.
sumedh 5y ago
> Please stop blaming India and China without much research. When sea levels rise and poor Indians who live near the sea are affected, is the Indian govt going to help them or will the rich countries need to step in like they did during Covid? You can talk about per capita all you want but in the end who is going to support the affected Indians?
- seaman1921 5y ago
  So your point is that since (you think) rich countries are going to help India, they are allowed to have higher emissions ? >in the end who is going to support the affected Indians? nobody, but that is besides the point
fruityrudy 5y ago
Unfortunately per capita doesn’t matter regarding effects of climate change. It’s the absolute numbers. The marginal effect of removing Australia’s emissions is like a rounding error in the climate equation.
- La1n 5y ago
  > It’s the absolute numbers. Yes, for the world, and not per country. Otherwise it'd be "better" for the world if larger countries just split into many smaller ones.

Here are the per-capita numbers btw : India 1.91 United States 15.52 China 7.38 Australia 17.10 Please stop blaming India and China without much research.

randomperson_24 5y ago

Exactly!

Smithalicious 5y ago

Is it fair to extrapolate like that? Does "reasonable" pollution scale linearly with population, or can we expect large countries to be more efficient because of economies of scale? Genuinely curious

kergonath 5y ago
If you compare the US to any European country you’ll see that really is not the case.
wongarsu 5y ago
Most things don't have significant economies of scale beyond a fairly small country (maybe the size of England). The 3 biggest polluters are electricity&heat, agriculture and transport. - Electricity and heat benefit from a bigger electricity network (e.g. to get more reliable solar and wind), but electrical grids don't necessarily follow borders. The US has about 3 grids, continental Europe has a grid spanning 24 countries. (in fact, there's almost no grids that span exactly one country [1]) - Agriculture doesn't hugely benefit from economies of scale beyond the regional level - Transport benefits mostly from rail networks, which aren't really bound to borders You can make a case that population density helps (most obvious in the case of transport, but it is really helpful for lots of things), and being an island makes electricity harder. But in the case of Australia, it has to be noted that the negative effect on electricity from being an island is somewhat lessened by their vast area, and the negative effect of low population density on transport emissions is somewhat lessened by most Australians actually living in pretty high density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wide_area_synchronous_grid_(Eurasia,_Mediterranean).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wide_area_synchronous_gri...

nicoburns 5y ago

Some further numbers: EU avg. 7.0 UK 5.3

KptMarchewa 5y ago

Does that include fact that Australia is the biggest net exporter of coal, or do the get free pass for that?

fruityrudy 5y ago
Net exports contribute 3% global CO2 emissions.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  A lot for country with 0.3% of global population.

sumedh 5y ago

> Please stop blaming India and China without much research. When sea levels rise and poor Indians who live near the sea are affected, is the Indian govt going to help them or will the rich countries need to step in like they did during Covid? You can talk about per capita all you want but in the end who is going to support the affected Indians?

seaman1921 5y ago
So your point is that since (you think) rich countries are going to help India, they are allowed to have higher emissions ? >in the end who is going to support the affected Indians? nobody, but that is besides the point

fruityrudy 5y ago

Unfortunately per capita doesn’t matter regarding effects of climate change. It’s the absolute numbers. The marginal effect of removing Australia’s emissions is like a rounding error in the climate equation.

La1n 5y ago
> It’s the absolute numbers. Yes, for the world, and not per country. Otherwise it'd be "better" for the world if larger countries just split into many smaller ones.