3 ms·

the title is a bit misleading: > "23 Chinese cities - among them Shanghai, Beijing and Handan - along with Moscow and Tokyo accounted for 52% of the total [gre

the title is a bit misleading: > "23 Chinese cities - among them Shanghai, Beijing and Handan - along with Moscow and Tokyo accounted for 52% of the total [greenhouse gas emissions]" but admits that > "In per capita terms, however, emissions from cities in the richest parts of the world are still generally higher than those from urban centres in developing countries..." not only could you draw the mistaken conclusion that cities are pollution machines, but that china is the problem child, a double-whammy of subtle sensationalism. the west, and the US in particular, should be leading the fight against pollution, not just because it's the right thing to do for ourselves and future generations, but also because it's a geopolitical and economic lever. instead, our collective complacency and greed drives us to subtly blame developing countries stiving for parity with the west, rather than tackling the problem with economic might and wild abandon. instead it's another notch in the belt for capital misallocation.

finiteseries 5y ago
The only number that matters to the environment is the total. Every single western city could drop to 0 emissions, but those 23 Chinese cities along with Moscow and Tokyo already account for the majority of urban greenhouse gas emissions.
- vkou 5y ago
  > The only number that matters to the environment is the total. The only number that matters to humans is the quota per capita. It's how we set policy. What is the per-capita carbon budget that you'd like to assign to the US, the EU, and to China? If those numbers are different, why? If they are the same, which region exceeds them, and by how much?
  - convolvatron 5y ago
    alot of people while maybe stating support for the notion of human equality would nonetheless have problems assigning the same amount of resources to everyone. after all, that would pretty much screw your lovely market
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I'm not sure why this is being downvoted so hard. If you don't go per-capita, there's no sensible way to measure and compare emissions. If a country splits in two (something like Yugoslavia or Sudan), has its emissions halved? If a city gobbles up its neighbor, has that city's emissions doubled?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > The only number that matters to the environment is the total. Why count only cities, then?
  - danudey 5y ago
    Because that's what their analysis was about.
- brummm 5y ago
  It's such a bad attempt for the West to wiggle out of its own responsibility. Especially the US has a crazy high CO2 emission per capita. That's a much more damning number that should lead to action.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  And the reverse is equally true. What's your point? Because this is often used as an excuse to do nothing, until the other side does it first. And they say the same...
- elliekelly 5y ago
  > The only number that matters to the environment is the total. This is such flawed reasoning if you actually want to accomplish anything. When everyone thinks of the issue as an all-or-nothing problem everyone will act in their own interest. It’s always better for the prisoners to defect. But when one prisoner has the benefit of knowing the other prisoner’s decision then everything changes.
- jerlam 5y ago
  > majority of urban greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the majority of emissions from the 167 chosen cities, not the majority of the entire world's emissions. The conclusion is flawed - the United States does not have many large cities, or even large metropolitan areas. Comparing Bejing (21 million people), Shanghai (24 million), or Tokyo (14 million) to NYC (8 million) or Los Angeles (4 million), of course the larger cities which are entire multiples larger are going to going to account for a majority of the emissions. Bejing has a population roughly that of Florida, the third largest US state.
relativ575 5y ago
> the title is a bit misleading Was it the original title? Neither Reuter's article nor the study is titled as such. > but admits that This is a study by a university in China. Not sure what you mean by "admit"? It's the fact that a large amount of greenhouse emission is driven by a handful of cities predominantly in China. It's also the fact that, per capita, Western countries still emit more. > instead, our collective complacency and greed drives us to subtly blame developing countries striving for parity with the west, rather than tackling the problem with economic might and wild abandon Perhaps you have a bigger point to make, because this article is very far from blaming. Also, the same point is essentially regurgitated in every article mentioned China's or India's responsibility in fighting pollution. Make no mistake, they do bear large responsibility, if only because they control over what can happen within their borders.

finiteseries 5y ago

The only number that matters to the environment is the total. Every single western city could drop to 0 emissions, but those 23 Chinese cities along with Moscow and Tokyo already account for the majority of urban greenhouse gas emissions.

vkou 5y ago
> The only number that matters to the environment is the total. The only number that matters to humans is the quota per capita. It's how we set policy. What is the per-capita carbon budget that you'd like to assign to the US, the EU, and to China? If those numbers are different, why? If they are the same, which region exceeds them, and by how much?
- convolvatron 5y ago
  alot of people while maybe stating support for the notion of human equality would nonetheless have problems assigning the same amount of resources to everyone. after all, that would pretty much screw your lovely market
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I'm not sure why this is being downvoted so hard. If you don't go per-capita, there's no sensible way to measure and compare emissions. If a country splits in two (something like Yugoslavia or Sudan), has its emissions halved? If a city gobbles up its neighbor, has that city's emissions doubled?
ceejayoz 5y ago
> The only number that matters to the environment is the total. Why count only cities, then?
- danudey 5y ago
  Because that's what their analysis was about.
brummm 5y ago
It's such a bad attempt for the West to wiggle out of its own responsibility. Especially the US has a crazy high CO2 emission per capita. That's a much more damning number that should lead to action.
Scarblac 5y ago
And the reverse is equally true. What's your point? Because this is often used as an excuse to do nothing, until the other side does it first. And they say the same...
elliekelly 5y ago
> The only number that matters to the environment is the total. This is such flawed reasoning if you actually want to accomplish anything. When everyone thinks of the issue as an all-or-nothing problem everyone will act in their own interest. It’s always better for the prisoners to defect. But when one prisoner has the benefit of knowing the other prisoner’s decision then everything changes.
jerlam 5y ago
> majority of urban greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the majority of emissions from the 167 chosen cities, not the majority of the entire world's emissions. The conclusion is flawed - the United States does not have many large cities, or even large metropolitan areas. Comparing Bejing (21 million people), Shanghai (24 million), or Tokyo (14 million) to NYC (8 million) or Los Angeles (4 million), of course the larger cities which are entire multiples larger are going to going to account for a majority of the emissions. Bejing has a population roughly that of Florida, the third largest US state.

relativ575 5y ago

> the title is a bit misleading Was it the original title? Neither Reuter's article nor the study is titled as such. > but admits that This is a study by a university in China. Not sure what you mean by "admit"? It's the fact that a large amount of greenhouse emission is driven by a handful of cities predominantly in China. It's also the fact that, per capita, Western countries still emit more. > instead, our collective complacency and greed drives us to subtly blame developing countries striving for parity with the west, rather than tackling the problem with economic might and wild abandon Perhaps you have a bigger point to make, because this article is very far from blaming. Also, the same point is essentially regurgitated in every article mentioned China's or India's responsibility in fighting pollution. Make no mistake, they do bear large responsibility, if only because they control over what can happen within their borders.