4 ms·

> Notice, that China's emissions started in 1980's when we've started offshoring our production there. Look at per capita graphs. See the third image from the

> Notice, that China's emissions started in 1980's when we've started offshoring our production there. Look at per capita graphs. See the third image from the economist I linked to in the comment you're responding to. It's a common misunderstanding that the pollution reduction in the US is largely due to offshoring polluting activity, but it's not true. If it were, the gap between production vs consumption-based CO2 would be large. > But look at global emissions to know who has contributed the most. > https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-tr https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-tr... Keep in mind that humans have never created as CO2 emissions at as fast of a rate as in the past year and that no country has ever produced as much as the PRC has in the past year. Sharing graphs from 6 years ago, as you did, grossly distorts the situation we face in 2023. Furthermore the graph starts before the US or the PRC even existed! While I can understand how it may satisfy curiosity to examine pollution that happened hundreds of years ago in various parts of the earth, it's utterly irrelevant to solving climate issues facing humanity in the present day.

myshpa 3y ago
> See the third image from the economist That's our world in data graph. > the pollution reduction in the US is largely due to offshoring polluting activity, but it's not true. If it were, the gap between production vs consumption-based CO2 would be large You're mistaken. Consumption based CO2 is production_based - exported + imported. It only means that you import more than you export. If you export a lot, you may also import a lot from china. This graph doesn't say what you say it does. > Sharing graphs from 6 years ago, as you did, grossly distorts the situation we face in 2023 Where did I shared 6 years old graph? I'm linking same source as you do (our world in data). > pollution that happened hundreds of years ago in various parts of the earth ... to solving climate issues facing humanity in the present day. The CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and some portion even for thousands of years. It causes acidification of the oceans, deforestation also tips the scales a bit by removing carbon sinks, industrial ag degrades soils and releases a lot of carbon, etc. ... you're wrong again.
- AlchemistCamp 3y ago
  > Where did I shared 6 years old graph? It's the only link of yours I quoted. Click it. The data is from 2017. > you're wrong again. No. You really can't do much constructive by criticizing pollution from 250 years ago by countries that no longer exist. If you actually care about the climate, you've got to look at where pollution is happening now and find a way to decrease and/or recapture those emissions. Also, please don't "quote" my comment by taking snippets out of sentences or, worse yet, joining multiple snippets. It misrepresents what I wrote.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > Click it. The data is from 2017 That graph is from https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions, same page you've got your data from. Even if you'd update the graph it wouldn't change much. If you have better / more recent data / graph, please share. > by criticizing pollution from 250 years ago by countries that no longer exist I was writing about US and Europe. > where pollution is happening now The real culprit of the pollution is the system we live, financial, politicial, imperial. It's all EU & USA's work. How the world looks is our work. Ours are the financial levers which drive everything up, exponentially. We can conveniently ignore that we've offshored our manufacturing to other countries. We can ignore that EU & USA paid for destruction of forests all over the world for their consumption, and poisoned our oceans with their emissions, and filled the air with CO2 and methane and N2O, sources of warming that stay there for hundreds of years, "paying" for that with their make-believe printed paper money. But than we should at least look at per person emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita You see, China still has lower emissions per capita than US, Australia, Canada there. Almost half. Same as half countries from Europe. But we'd like to ignore that too. What does it tell us? That we, by blaming China, want to continue consuming at the expense of everybody else, don't change anything on our part, and instead shift the focus to some third world country. Maybe China, or maybe few of those countries we've destroyed with our military/industrial complex? Just look how many people are being born there, scary, maybe war would improve the economy? It sure seems so. We should lower our consumption significantly instead, to enable other, less fortunate regions to develop and consume more. We're the ones who overconsume. Not some third world countries. It's just the excuse our politicans and corporations are spreading. https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png > please don't "quote" my comment by taking snippets out of sentences or, worse yet, joining multiple snippets Sorry, that's how I do things. > It misrepresents what I wrote No, it doesn't. It shows you (and others) what I'm reacting to.

myshpa 3y ago

> See the third image from the economist That's our world in data graph. > the pollution reduction in the US is largely due to offshoring polluting activity, but it's not true. If it were, the gap between production vs consumption-based CO2 would be large You're mistaken. Consumption based CO2 is production_based - exported + imported. It only means that you import more than you export. If you export a lot, you may also import a lot from china. This graph doesn't say what you say it does. > Sharing graphs from 6 years ago, as you did, grossly distorts the situation we face in 2023 Where did I shared 6 years old graph? I'm linking same source as you do (our world in data). > pollution that happened hundreds of years ago in various parts of the earth ... to solving climate issues facing humanity in the present day. The CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and some portion even for thousands of years. It causes acidification of the oceans, deforestation also tips the scales a bit by removing carbon sinks, industrial ag degrades soils and releases a lot of carbon, etc. ... you're wrong again.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
> Where did I shared 6 years old graph? It's the only link of yours I quoted. Click it. The data is from 2017. > you're wrong again. No. You really can't do much constructive by criticizing pollution from 250 years ago by countries that no longer exist. If you actually care about the climate, you've got to look at where pollution is happening now and find a way to decrease and/or recapture those emissions. Also, please don't "quote" my comment by taking snippets out of sentences or, worse yet, joining multiple snippets. It misrepresents what I wrote.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Click it. The data is from 2017 That graph is from https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions, same page you've got your data from. Even if you'd update the graph it wouldn't change much. If you have better / more recent data / graph, please share. > by criticizing pollution from 250 years ago by countries that no longer exist I was writing about US and Europe. > where pollution is happening now The real culprit of the pollution is the system we live, financial, politicial, imperial. It's all EU & USA's work. How the world looks is our work. Ours are the financial levers which drive everything up, exponentially. We can conveniently ignore that we've offshored our manufacturing to other countries. We can ignore that EU & USA paid for destruction of forests all over the world for their consumption, and poisoned our oceans with their emissions, and filled the air with CO2 and methane and N2O, sources of warming that stay there for hundreds of years, "paying" for that with their make-believe printed paper money. But than we should at least look at per person emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita You see, China still has lower emissions per capita than US, Australia, Canada there. Almost half. Same as half countries from Europe. But we'd like to ignore that too. What does it tell us? That we, by blaming China, want to continue consuming at the expense of everybody else, don't change anything on our part, and instead shift the focus to some third world country. Maybe China, or maybe few of those countries we've destroyed with our military/industrial complex? Just look how many people are being born there, scary, maybe war would improve the economy? It sure seems so. We should lower our consumption significantly instead, to enable other, less fortunate regions to develop and consume more. We're the ones who overconsume. Not some third world countries. It's just the excuse our politicans and corporations are spreading. https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png > please don't "quote" my comment by taking snippets out of sentences or, worse yet, joining multiple snippets Sorry, that's how I do things. > It misrepresents what I wrote No, it doesn't. It shows you (and others) what I'm reacting to.