3 ms·

It seems to be mostly united statians pointing at China. But in this graph we clearly see that the US reaches their overshoot day twice as fast as China.

ricardo81 3y ago
Indeed, North America per capita consume a lot more energy than most nations.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Not to mention that we outsource a lot of our impact to supplier countries (China and others).
  - ricardo81 3y ago
    True, and while the UK's emissions per capita has dropped a fair bit since 1990, it's very hard to tell how much of that has been outsourced. Put another way, it's actually quite difficult to measure your own carbon/resource footprint.
    - abyssin 3y ago
      My rule of thumb is based on how much money one spends. My reasoning is as follows: it isn't too far off to say our economy is based on fossil fuels. Spending money is taking part in this economy. How much one takes part in that economy tells how much one is responsible for the pollution it creates. What about people who spend money of organic, fair trade goods, etc.? In the end, that money will be spent by others on goods of the traditional economy. I'm not too sure about the second part, so criticisms are welcome.
      - chmod600 3y ago
        A good first approximation, surely. Money is a good proxy for consumption. Not true for leasing a fancy apartment, though, so you'll want to adjust it. The idea that money you spend then gets spent by someone else on consumption and that you caused that is a little too hand-wavy for me. But I do suspect that a lot of the politically-correct consumption is not as great as it seems when you look deeper.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ricardo81 3y ago
        Agree in this approximation. In an ideal world, monetary value would be more closely aligned with energy consumption and in turn aligned with productivity, where productivity is less aligned with monetary value and more aligned with the sunk energy cost.
      - RetroTechie 3y ago
        That's only a starting point. Money spent = a kind of 'cost' function, with 'cost' representing raw materials, energy etc used to produce something. Higher cost = more resources used / more damage to environment. But that's only accurate if all costs (including environmental) are somehow accounted for in market price(s). That is rarely the case. Apart from the difficulty of assigning $$ values to things like tropical forest cut down, mountain top removed to get copper ore, water used & polluted, or what have you. Also it doesn't include social costs. If product is cheap but someone's health suffered, or profit helped dictator to reduce press freedom in producing country, is product still cheap? Too many unknowns & externalities - $$ spent is a poor indicator.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        "All models are wrong; some are useful."
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Yep. It is right that Chinas CO2 output has been rising lately quite much with its huge population going to western standards, but tbh, actually China is currently doing more in cutting those emissions than all of the West combined. Our fingerpointing is just stupid lazyness, and soon we will be the ones being pointed with the finger at.. even more. Just read that great summary e.g.: https://nitter.net/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680246994072133632#m https://nitter.net/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680246994072133632... "China is the ONLY country in the world that both has enough resources to make a real difference AND is actually treating the climate emergency like it’s an emergency" (Still so many posts will likely come and say here how bad China is and how it is all worthless because of them.. just to excuse our non-action).
bartimus 3y ago
It doesn't make sense to compare countries on a per capita basis. China has the bigger emission deficit. Therefore China should have the earlier overshoot date. It doesn't matter how many people live there.

ricardo81 3y ago

Indeed, North America per capita consume a lot more energy than most nations.

sokoloff 3y ago
Not to mention that we outsource a lot of our impact to supplier countries (China and others).
- ricardo81 3y ago
  True, and while the UK's emissions per capita has dropped a fair bit since 1990, it's very hard to tell how much of that has been outsourced. Put another way, it's actually quite difficult to measure your own carbon/resource footprint.
  - abyssin 3y ago
    My rule of thumb is based on how much money one spends. My reasoning is as follows: it isn't too far off to say our economy is based on fossil fuels. Spending money is taking part in this economy. How much one takes part in that economy tells how much one is responsible for the pollution it creates. What about people who spend money of organic, fair trade goods, etc.? In the end, that money will be spent by others on goods of the traditional economy. I'm not too sure about the second part, so criticisms are welcome.
    - chmod600 3y ago
      A good first approximation, surely. Money is a good proxy for consumption. Not true for leasing a fancy apartment, though, so you'll want to adjust it. The idea that money you spend then gets spent by someone else on consumption and that you caused that is a little too hand-wavy for me. But I do suspect that a lot of the politically-correct consumption is not as great as it seems when you look deeper.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ricardo81 3y ago
      Agree in this approximation. In an ideal world, monetary value would be more closely aligned with energy consumption and in turn aligned with productivity, where productivity is less aligned with monetary value and more aligned with the sunk energy cost.
    - RetroTechie 3y ago
      That's only a starting point. Money spent = a kind of 'cost' function, with 'cost' representing raw materials, energy etc used to produce something. Higher cost = more resources used / more damage to environment. But that's only accurate if all costs (including environmental) are somehow accounted for in market price(s). That is rarely the case. Apart from the difficulty of assigning $$ values to things like tropical forest cut down, mountain top removed to get copper ore, water used & polluted, or what have you. Also it doesn't include social costs. If product is cheap but someone's health suffered, or profit helped dictator to reduce press freedom in producing country, is product still cheap? Too many unknowns & externalities - $$ spent is a poor indicator.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        "All models are wrong; some are useful."

throwbadubadu 3y ago

Yep. It is right that Chinas CO2 output has been rising lately quite much with its huge population going to western standards, but tbh, actually China is currently doing more in cutting those emissions than all of the West combined. Our fingerpointing is just stupid lazyness, and soon we will be the ones being pointed with the finger at.. even more. Just read that great summary e.g.: https://nitter.net/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680246994072133632#m https://nitter.net/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680246994072133632... "China is the ONLY country in the world that both has enough resources to make a real difference AND is actually treating the climate emergency like it’s an emergency" (Still so many posts will likely come and say here how bad China is and how it is all worthless because of them.. just to excuse our non-action).

bartimus 3y ago

It doesn't make sense to compare countries on a per capita basis. China has the bigger emission deficit. Therefore China should have the earlier overshoot date. It doesn't matter how many people live there.