4 ms·

Per capita consumption would likely be a better measurement? Obviously much harder to measure.

by ghayes 3y ago

quicklime 3y ago
It is harder, although people have tried to do it, e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289373031_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_of_Household_Consumption https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289373031_Environme...
xnx 3y ago
It's got to be very close to per capita spending.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It's got to be very close to per capita spending Carbon intensity of GDP vary wildly across place and time [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?time=1839 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?time=1839
- sanxiyn 3y ago
  No it isn't. Consumption is not emission. We did improve energy efficiency a lot.
mikepurvis 3y ago
Definitely harder to measure, but I think this is the basic premise of John Michael Greer's Wealth of Nature [1]: that what we refer to as the "primary" economy—resource extraction industries like mining, farming, and so on—are in fact secondary to the true primary economy of purely natural systems upon which those industries rest, and if we can devise means of valuing and pricing the contribution of that true primary economy, then we'll be much better positioned not to treat those resources (including things like the ability of it to absorb pollution) as bottomless. On the one hand, it's carbon pricing ++, but I think it's quite a holistic way of looking at the matter, since it's also trying to consider the multitude of other ways that poor stewardship of the natural world ultimately impacts the survivability of the planet, in terms of things like over-fishing, deforestation leading to soil erosion, irresponsible pesticide use leading to monocultures, etc etc. [1]: https://newsociety.ca/books/w/the-wealth-of-nature https://newsociety.ca/books/w/the-wealth-of-nature
MrBodangles 3y ago
It’s called “embodied energy” and is notoriously difficult to calculate due to globalisation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy Corporations promoted offshoring/outsourcing specifically to move their most pollutant/dangerous processes to the developing world — out of reach from the threat of western democracy and it’s environmental/labor regulations. Using per capita production is a whataboutism psychological warfare tactic to derail climate/emissions discussions and point the finger at China etc, even though the developed world has always been responsible for the majority of the demand, and “embodied” energy/emissions.
throw0101c 3y ago
Not really. The Global Carbon Project maintains a database of estimates of consumption-based emissions: * https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2021 https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budg...

Per capita consumption would likely be a better measurement? Obviously much harder to measure.

by ghayes 3y ago

Per capita consumption would likely be a better measurement? Obviously much harder to measure.

It is harder, although people have tried to do it, e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289373031_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_of_Household_Consumption https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289373031_Environme...

xnx 3y ago

It's got to be very close to per capita spending.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> It's got to be very close to per capita spending Carbon intensity of GDP vary wildly across place and time [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?time=1839 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?time=1839
sanxiyn 3y ago
No it isn't. Consumption is not emission. We did improve energy efficiency a lot.

mikepurvis 3y ago

Definitely harder to measure, but I think this is the basic premise of John Michael Greer's Wealth of Nature [1]: that what we refer to as the "primary" economy—resource extraction industries like mining, farming, and so on—are in fact secondary to the true primary economy of purely natural systems upon which those industries rest, and if we can devise means of valuing and pricing the contribution of that true primary economy, then we'll be much better positioned not to treat those resources (including things like the ability of it to absorb pollution) as bottomless. On the one hand, it's carbon pricing ++, but I think it's quite a holistic way of looking at the matter, since it's also trying to consider the multitude of other ways that poor stewardship of the natural world ultimately impacts the survivability of the planet, in terms of things like over-fishing, deforestation leading to soil erosion, irresponsible pesticide use leading to monocultures, etc etc. [1]: https://newsociety.ca/books/w/the-wealth-of-nature https://newsociety.ca/books/w/the-wealth-of-nature

MrBodangles 3y ago

It’s called “embodied energy” and is notoriously difficult to calculate due to globalisation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy Corporations promoted offshoring/outsourcing specifically to move their most pollutant/dangerous processes to the developing world — out of reach from the threat of western democracy and it’s environmental/labor regulations. Using per capita production is a whataboutism psychological warfare tactic to derail climate/emissions discussions and point the finger at China etc, even though the developed world has always been responsible for the majority of the demand, and “embodied” energy/emissions.

throw0101c 3y ago

Not really. The Global Carbon Project maintains a database of estimates of consumption-based emissions: * https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2021 https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budg...