4 ms·

Who do you mean by "we"...because some countries don't give a shit about the impact they are having on the world and still pollute the air and water worse than

Who do you mean by "we"...because some countries don't give a shit about the impact they are having on the world and still pollute the air and water worse than EU and US countries 50 years ago (China, India, etc).

drdeca 5y ago
China has a lower CO2 per capita emissions than the US. Of course, the environment doesn’t care about who has the most per capita emissions, just “cares” about the total emissions, but in terms of measuring efficiency of “how much CO2 needed to support the lifestyle of each person” it seems they currently have a better rate. Like, if you replaced a random subset of China with the population of the US, with another copy of the US, the total emissions would [edit:on average] be increased. Therefore, I think in order to get them to decrease their rate (which is important to do due to their large population/ their large total emissions), it may be useful to lower our own rate in order to have a convincing position.
- qeternity 5y ago
  I'm not even sure what this comment is about. The important bit right now is trajectory. China is definitely not trending lower. They have added huge amounts of coal generation in the past year, and their carbon market is broken by design (to keep emissions cheap).
- vixen99 5y ago
  So if we reduce still further (the UK and the US have made significant cuts) you think China will think again about the 43 new coal-fired power stations now in the design stage? I'm not so sure. While paying lip service to the Green agenda, my guess is that perhaps the Chinese don't really believe that the world is headed for armageddon. They are of course happy to see ideas like 'net zero' take off in the West. https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/ https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/
- j_walter 5y ago
  The US has been trending down per capita for the last 50 years...but the problem is we have more people so the total output is higher. China's trend, as another poster said, is always going higher. https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment
  - drdeca 5y ago
    By “we” do you mean the US? Because the population of China is over 1 Billion, while the US population (as of 2019) is only 328 million. Or do you mean “China” by “we”? Because in that case yes, the total emissions in China are greater than in the US, corresponding to their larger population (despite their per capita emissions being like half those of the US)
germinalphrase 5y ago
Under the current circumstances, sure they do. But just like skipping landlines for cellphones, if the incentives were such that developing countries could leapfrog over dirty industry without a development penalty (which could be possible had we taken a different path the last 50+ years) - they very well might.

drdeca 5y ago

China has a lower CO2 per capita emissions than the US. Of course, the environment doesn’t care about who has the most per capita emissions, just “cares” about the total emissions, but in terms of measuring efficiency of “how much CO2 needed to support the lifestyle of each person” it seems they currently have a better rate. Like, if you replaced a random subset of China with the population of the US, with another copy of the US, the total emissions would [edit:on average] be increased. Therefore, I think in order to get them to decrease their rate (which is important to do due to their large population/ their large total emissions), it may be useful to lower our own rate in order to have a convincing position.

qeternity 5y ago
I'm not even sure what this comment is about. The important bit right now is trajectory. China is definitely not trending lower. They have added huge amounts of coal generation in the past year, and their carbon market is broken by design (to keep emissions cheap).
vixen99 5y ago
So if we reduce still further (the UK and the US have made significant cuts) you think China will think again about the 43 new coal-fired power stations now in the design stage? I'm not so sure. While paying lip service to the Green agenda, my guess is that perhaps the Chinese don't really believe that the world is headed for armageddon. They are of course happy to see ideas like 'net zero' take off in the West. https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/ https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/
j_walter 5y ago
The US has been trending down per capita for the last 50 years...but the problem is we have more people so the total output is higher. China's trend, as another poster said, is always going higher. https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment
- drdeca 5y ago
  By “we” do you mean the US? Because the population of China is over 1 Billion, while the US population (as of 2019) is only 328 million. Or do you mean “China” by “we”? Because in that case yes, the total emissions in China are greater than in the US, corresponding to their larger population (despite their per capita emissions being like half those of the US)

germinalphrase 5y ago

Under the current circumstances, sure they do. But just like skipping landlines for cellphones, if the incentives were such that developing countries could leapfrog over dirty industry without a development penalty (which could be possible had we taken a different path the last 50+ years) - they very well might.