3 ms·

>environment doesn't care about per capita The enviroment doesn't care about climate change, earth will go on in some form regardless. Climate change is an ant

>environment doesn't care about per capita The enviroment doesn't care about climate change, earth will go on in some form regardless. Climate change is an anthropocene / (geo)political problem. The only way to coordinate politcal/human problem is via metrics stakeholders think is "fair" to regulate behaviors around. Currently that's per capita, which is already concession of not factoring in historic emissions. OPs point is extra useless because it tries to coordinate geopolitics of climate change via metrics most of the world will never agree to, made even more unfeasible by trying to do so via US domestic politics. It's like suggesting PRC domestic politics should be leveraged to reduce US defense spending, it's fundmentally unworkable.

vlovich123 3y ago
I think you're splitting hairs. Clearly "environment" in this context isn't the existence of Earth as a planet but life on Earth, the current ecology, and our place within it. That cares very much about how much total carbon output there is, regardless of what we perceive as fair. And again, as I mentioned, China's total energy use is likely artificially inflated than it might otherwise be because the world's manufacturing capacity is centered there - a fairer comparison would likely take carbon emissions used in exports and attribute that back to the home country that is importing the product. I suspect in that context USA & Europe will look remarkably worse per capita.
- dirtyid 3y ago
  It may matter on academic considerations, people can discuss it, but it doesn't matter on global regulation layer whereby fairness is determined via collective consensus and for forseeable future, per capita is what everyone can live with. Your last point is signficiant because the rhetoric of total emissions isn't going to fly especially if the numbers make west look worse. In context of OPs post, trying to unilaterally frame climate debate around total emission in US and somehow turn that into geopolitcal leverage is not realistic especially if closer interogation of metric is against most major players interests. I don't think it's splitting hairs rather than acknowleding geopolitical constraints over what's workable and what's not, even if what's workable is suboptimal.

vlovich123 3y ago

I think you're splitting hairs. Clearly "environment" in this context isn't the existence of Earth as a planet but life on Earth, the current ecology, and our place within it. That cares very much about how much total carbon output there is, regardless of what we perceive as fair. And again, as I mentioned, China's total energy use is likely artificially inflated than it might otherwise be because the world's manufacturing capacity is centered there - a fairer comparison would likely take carbon emissions used in exports and attribute that back to the home country that is importing the product. I suspect in that context USA & Europe will look remarkably worse per capita.

dirtyid 3y ago
It may matter on academic considerations, people can discuss it, but it doesn't matter on global regulation layer whereby fairness is determined via collective consensus and for forseeable future, per capita is what everyone can live with. Your last point is signficiant because the rhetoric of total emissions isn't going to fly especially if the numbers make west look worse. In context of OPs post, trying to unilaterally frame climate debate around total emission in US and somehow turn that into geopolitcal leverage is not realistic especially if closer interogation of metric is against most major players interests. I don't think it's splitting hairs rather than acknowleding geopolitical constraints over what's workable and what's not, even if what's workable is suboptimal.