4 ms·

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

by 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.
        l332mn 5y ago
        The paradox of the situation is that population levels is mostly correlated with consumption levels. Which means that lowering population by natural means implies much higher emissions in total. Population levels are tied to economic conditions, and it's a false hope to try to control it through policy alone, which can affect it somewhat in the short term but not at all in the long term. Population control is a misguided concept, and has a grim history, ranging from mass sterilisation in India to the "lebensraum" idea of the Nazis. It's not a sensible path, and is mostly tied to extreme ideologies and Malthusian pseudo-science. Pointing to Uganda, whose citizens represents probably about 1% of emissions per capita compared to the west is is crazy to me. How can one even excuse ones own high consumption levels while blaming Ugandans for reproducing, when one represents the same amount emissions as that of a small village in some places?

by l332mn 5y ago

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.
      - l332mn 5y ago
        The paradox of the situation is that population levels is mostly correlated with consumption levels. Which means that lowering population by natural means implies much higher emissions in total. Population levels are tied to economic conditions, and it's a false hope to try to control it through policy alone, which can affect it somewhat in the short term but not at all in the long term. Population control is a misguided concept, and has a grim history, ranging from mass sterilisation in India to the "lebensraum" idea of the Nazis. It's not a sensible path, and is mostly tied to extreme ideologies and Malthusian pseudo-science. Pointing to Uganda, whose citizens represents probably about 1% of emissions per capita compared to the west is is crazy to me. How can one even excuse ones own high consumption levels while blaming Ugandans for reproducing, when one represents the same amount emissions as that of a small village in some places?