5 ms·

> It's frustrating to live in Canada and be told we're the biggest problem in the world with our 2% of all emissions. It's frustrating to live in china and tol

by danhor 4y ago

> It's frustrating to live in Canada and be told we're the biggest problem in the world with our 2% of all emissions. It's frustrating to live in china and told we're the biggest problem in the world, even we're responsible for less than 15% of carbon in the atmosphere. Wealthy countries like Canada and the US have profited from blowing carbon in the atmosphere over centuries and got wealthy from it, but now refuse to lower their emissions and blame us for wanting to get rich too. It's all a question of framing.

evandale 4y ago
> Wealthy countries like Canada and the US have profited from blowing carbon in the atmosphere over centuries and got wealthy from it It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison. We have cleaner methods now, and my province doesn't even have any coal plants left. Our energy costs are through the roof because of that effort to save the planet. Meanwhile China continues to pollute more and more yoy, undoing any progress the rest of the world makes, at a mind boggling scale using outdated technology with no regard for the rest of the world.
- lambertsimnel 4y ago
  > It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison. I think the idea is to compare countries' per-person impact. Otherwise, a country as populous as China is being held to a higher standard. How else should we compare countries?
  - evandale 4y ago
    Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries. edit: to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change...
    - lambertsimnel 4y ago
      > Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries. As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? > to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change... If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration? (Of course, we also ought to consider any variation in per-capita emissions both in locations with net immigration and in locations with net emigration.) Maybe economies of scale help explain lower per-capita emissions in some locations (but not necessarily at national level).
      - evandale 4y ago
        > As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income? > If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration? I pointed out how absurd that was, not that it was a good idea.
        lambertsimnel 4y ago
        >> As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? > How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income? Possibly by income, but there are other options. Other than being impractical (and possibly suggesting individuals are freer to vary their emissions unilaterally than they actually are), we could in theory actually measure individual emissions. How about measuring per-capita emissions regionally, and with regions sub-divided by population density?
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  > It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations In other words, Canada and the US were even worse polluters with their small populations.
josephcsible 4y ago
> we're responsible for less than 15% of carbon in the atmosphere. This isn't true. In 2020, out of 34.81 billion tons of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels, 10.67 billion tons of it came from China. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
- wmorgan 4y ago
  The GP said CO2 “in the atmosphere” meaning that if you count all the industrialization in the 1800s and 1900s then China doesn’t look so bad.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou... says "Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years." So isn't most of the CO2 emitted from so long before China became the world's worst polluter no longer in the atmosphere?
    - wmorgan 4y ago
      Sure, it’s just a different frame: “you developed doing this thing. Now you’re saying we can’t do that same thing.” Why should The West “get credit” for the ocean’s CO2 dissolution capacity just because they industrialized earlier? Either way, we have to lift everyone out of poverty. Again, just a different way of framing the problem.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > Why should The West “get credit” for the ocean’s CO2 dissolution capacity just because they industrialized earlier? That's why I originally compared emissions in 2020 rather than emissions remaining in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways.
      - evandale 4y ago

by danhor 4y ago

evandale 4y ago

> Wealthy countries like Canada and the US have profited from blowing carbon in the atmosphere over centuries and got wealthy from it It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison. We have cleaner methods now, and my province doesn't even have any coal plants left. Our energy costs are through the roof because of that effort to save the planet. Meanwhile China continues to pollute more and more yoy, undoing any progress the rest of the world makes, at a mind boggling scale using outdated technology with no regard for the rest of the world.

lambertsimnel 4y ago
> It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison. I think the idea is to compare countries' per-person impact. Otherwise, a country as populous as China is being held to a higher standard. How else should we compare countries?
- evandale 4y ago
  Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries. edit: to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change...
  - lambertsimnel 4y ago
    > Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries. As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? > to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change... If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration? (Of course, we also ought to consider any variation in per-capita emissions both in locations with net immigration and in locations with net emigration.) Maybe economies of scale help explain lower per-capita emissions in some locations (but not necessarily at national level).
    - evandale 4y ago
      > As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income? > If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration? I pointed out how absurd that was, not that it was a good idea.
      - lambertsimnel 4y ago
        >> As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders? > How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income? Possibly by income, but there are other options. Other than being impractical (and possibly suggesting individuals are freer to vary their emissions unilaterally than they actually are), we could in theory actually measure individual emissions. How about measuring per-capita emissions regionally, and with regions sub-divided by population density?
ForHackernews 4y ago
> It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations In other words, Canada and the US were even worse polluters with their small populations.

josephcsible 4y ago

> we're responsible for less than 15% of carbon in the atmosphere. This isn't true. In 2020, out of 34.81 billion tons of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels, 10.67 billion tons of it came from China. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

wmorgan 4y ago
The GP said CO2 “in the atmosphere” meaning that if you count all the industrialization in the 1800s and 1900s then China doesn’t look so bad.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou... says "Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years." So isn't most of the CO2 emitted from so long before China became the world's worst polluter no longer in the atmosphere?
  - wmorgan 4y ago
    Sure, it’s just a different frame: “you developed doing this thing. Now you’re saying we can’t do that same thing.” Why should The West “get credit” for the ocean’s CO2 dissolution capacity just because they industrialized earlier? Either way, we have to lift everyone out of poverty. Again, just a different way of framing the problem.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > Why should The West “get credit” for the ocean’s CO2 dissolution capacity just because they industrialized earlier? That's why I originally compared emissions in 2020 rather than emissions remaining in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways.
    - evandale 4y ago