4 ms·

It's interesting to look at the long term trends, especially when looking at some of the largest economies on the planet. Comparing the US[0] and China[1], the

It's interesting to look at the long term trends, especially when looking at some of the largest economies on the planet. Comparing the US[0] and China[1], the US has: - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) - A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%) Meanwhile for the same period China has had - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

merrvk 5y ago
Time to invade china and stop them destroying the earth
CountSessine 5y ago
Or... perhaps just by having everything manufactured in China? Which doesn't work so well when you're China?
- nielsbot 5y ago
  Or anywhere else in the world, eventually. (Soon?)
ivalm 5y ago
US exports dirty production to other countries so some of the drop is not real (just gets allocated to other countries). Also despite this we still produce more than 2x more per capita than China.
l332mn 5y ago
These graphs measures "burning of fossil fuels for energy and cement production" only, which only represents a fraction of the total emissions in a country. It doesn't measure household emissions or food production. It also heavily favours post-industrial countries compared to countries still in the process of building heavy infrastructure (which requires cement production), like China. These data are biased and self-serving in that sense. US citizens still consume five times more than Chinese citizens in terms of resources, which is unsustainable.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  US and China have relatively similar land masses, thus arguably similar levels of available resources. China happens to have a population 4.2 larger than US, thus 4.2 lower per capita resources. If US resource consumption is unsustainable, then so is China's.
  - l332mn 5y ago
    Not sure what your argument is. We're talking about per capita emissions, not per country emissions, which doesn't even make sense. Why would an arbitrary grouping of human beings like a nation matter in terms of what emissions each individual should be allowed to represent?
    - bookofsand 5y ago
      We are comparing energy / sqmi. US and China have similar landmass. 3.8M sqmi vs 3.7M sqmi. Comparing their total energy consumption is, up to a constant factor, the same as comparing their energy / sqmi consumption. Countries should decide for themselves if they'd like to be crowded, thus per capita energy poor or sparsely populated, thus per capita energy rich.
      - l332mn 5y ago
        > Countries should decide for themselves if they'd like to be crowded Uh.. How exactly are countries supposed to decide if they'd "like" to be crowded? By the way, do you think the matter of simply possessing a large, mostly empty area like Alaska should grant the US an additional "quota" of emissions since it technically reduces US population density?
        bookofsand 5y ago
        Speaking of US and China, obvious candidates are immigration policy and one-child policy. Other levers: female education, child mortality reduction, shift in cultural norms towards small nuclear families, access to contraceptives. The entire 'western' world is experiencing population decline, and not for lack of resources. As a curiosity, I saw a few years ago an article from Africa: 'Meet the Ugandan Businessman with 13 Wives, 176 Children'. I hope we can agree that this kind of reproductive behavior is utterly unsustainable in a world that has learned about its limits (and sadly overshot them already). https://face2faceafrica.com/article/mustafa-mugambo-mutone https://face2faceafrica.com/article/mustafa-mugambo-mutone Edit: Of course landmass is an approximation. Of course Alaska / Arizona are not Iowa. On the flip side, Tibet / Xianjiang are not Guangdong either. The core point that given that TotalEmissions = Population * PerCapitaEmissions and the Earth only cares about TotalEmissions. We've got to price for the Population term somehow, lest it becomes an unaccounted externality.

merrvk 5y ago

Time to invade china and stop them destroying the earth

CountSessine 5y ago

Or... perhaps just by having everything manufactured in China? Which doesn't work so well when you're China?

nielsbot 5y ago
Or anywhere else in the world, eventually. (Soon?)

ivalm 5y ago

US exports dirty production to other countries so some of the drop is not real (just gets allocated to other countries). Also despite this we still produce more than 2x more per capita than China.

l332mn 5y ago

These graphs measures "burning of fossil fuels for energy and cement production" only, which only represents a fraction of the total emissions in a country. It doesn't measure household emissions or food production. It also heavily favours post-industrial countries compared to countries still in the process of building heavy infrastructure (which requires cement production), like China. These data are biased and self-serving in that sense. US citizens still consume five times more than Chinese citizens in terms of resources, which is unsustainable.

bookofsand 5y ago
US and China have relatively similar land masses, thus arguably similar levels of available resources. China happens to have a population 4.2 larger than US, thus 4.2 lower per capita resources. If US resource consumption is unsustainable, then so is China's.
- l332mn 5y ago
  Not sure what your argument is. We're talking about per capita emissions, not per country emissions, which doesn't even make sense. Why would an arbitrary grouping of human beings like a nation matter in terms of what emissions each individual should be allowed to represent?
  - bookofsand 5y ago
    We are comparing energy / sqmi. US and China have similar landmass. 3.8M sqmi vs 3.7M sqmi. Comparing their total energy consumption is, up to a constant factor, the same as comparing their energy / sqmi consumption. Countries should decide for themselves if they'd like to be crowded, thus per capita energy poor or sparsely populated, thus per capita energy rich.
    - l332mn 5y ago
      > Countries should decide for themselves if they'd like to be crowded Uh.. How exactly are countries supposed to decide if they'd "like" to be crowded? By the way, do you think the matter of simply possessing a large, mostly empty area like Alaska should grant the US an additional "quota" of emissions since it technically reduces US population density?
      - bookofsand 5y ago
        Speaking of US and China, obvious candidates are immigration policy and one-child policy. Other levers: female education, child mortality reduction, shift in cultural norms towards small nuclear families, access to contraceptives. The entire 'western' world is experiencing population decline, and not for lack of resources. As a curiosity, I saw a few years ago an article from Africa: 'Meet the Ugandan Businessman with 13 Wives, 176 Children'. I hope we can agree that this kind of reproductive behavior is utterly unsustainable in a world that has learned about its limits (and sadly overshot them already). https://face2faceafrica.com/article/mustafa-mugambo-mutone https://face2faceafrica.com/article/mustafa-mugambo-mutone Edit: Of course landmass is an approximation. Of course Alaska / Arizona are not Iowa. On the flip side, Tibet / Xianjiang are not Guangdong either. The core point that given that TotalEmissions = Population * PerCapitaEmissions and the Earth only cares about TotalEmissions. We've got to price for the Population term somehow, lest it becomes an unaccounted externality.