6 ms·

This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to l

This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to live in dense cities (which are more climate friendly), have access to public transportation, drive electric cars, and can afford to pay for carbon offsets. The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc.

lordnacho 3y ago
> Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. Isn't this because we're paying them to make stuff for us? Or is there some accounting of this where its their own consumption that causes it?
- omnimus 3y ago
  Also why would developing countries have to limit carbon emissions more than non developing ones?
  - Contusion3532 3y ago
    Exactly. The cumulative emissions of the United States dwarf the rest of the countries in the world[1]. The powerhouse that is the United States was built on the externality of carbon emissions. Now that the West has built their economies of this externality, they're trying to prevent developing nations from catching up by utilizing the same externality. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-20-largest-contributors-to-cumulative-CO2-emissions-1850-2021.png https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-2...
- fasterik 3y ago
  It's because they're industrializing, have higher population growth, and are primarily building coal power plants to keep up with it.
matsemann 3y ago
Well, you're saying "new carbon emissions", of course those are coming from developing countries. It's not the same statement as I said. And of course they should be allowed to improve their quality of life. My point is that an average HNer lives in a country where per capita co2 per person is >10x as much as the poorer countries. And since the average HNer is a well off person with a lavish lifestyle, international travels etc., it's probably closer to 100x the amount of a person in a developing country. Either this lifestyle should only belong to us few and developing countries should remain developing. Or we need to cut back to a sustainable level everyone can share. Which is a reality people don't want to face. > The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc. It's not about "political will". Would you pay more for a product if it's external effects were priced in? Probably not. Hence unsustainable. Our level of consumption is only possible because we don't pay the true price, someone else is.
- fasterik 3y ago
  Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries. Your implication was that the current problem is the level of consumption in the richest countries. But in reality that only accounts for a small portion of the expected carbon emissions over the next century. We don't need to "cut back" to a sustainable level. A sustainable level is whatever amount of energy we can produce without increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. If we built more nuclear, solar, and wind power, and invested more in carbon capture and storage, we could sustain a much higher level of consumption than we currently are, while emitting less carbon.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    You're kinda proving my point. Instead of facing reality as that would mean changes to your lifestyle, you want to keep on going as if nothing is happening and just hope technology will save us.
    - fasterik 3y ago
benhurmarcel 3y ago
CO2 emissions per capita (tons/person/year): Canada 18.72 United States 15.32 China 7.44 Brazil 2.24 Indonesia 2.02 India 1.89
- detourdog 3y ago
  I’m sure Canada is driven by heating load.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    What drives it doesn't matter. Some areas may simply not be habitable sustainably.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      We do seem to be working hard on making sure Canada is nice and temperate, though.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        It beats -45 I guess... (that's the lowest I ever saw on my outside thermometer on St. Josephs Island). You make a good point though: what is and what isn't habitable will change and as a result there will be substantial movement of people, displaced either by choice or by need.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      I understand I was just trying to explain to myself how they were #1 in usage. I was surprised. I was also trying to define the problem since they were outpacing the USA. Looks like Niagara falls only produces about 16 billion BTUs or 4.9 Million kWs.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Up North there are stacks of firewood everywhere and prepping for winter is an exercise in logistics. Also still many oil furnaces in active use.

lordnacho 3y ago

> Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. Isn't this because we're paying them to make stuff for us? Or is there some accounting of this where its their own consumption that causes it?

omnimus 3y ago
Also why would developing countries have to limit carbon emissions more than non developing ones?
- Contusion3532 3y ago
  Exactly. The cumulative emissions of the United States dwarf the rest of the countries in the world[1]. The powerhouse that is the United States was built on the externality of carbon emissions. Now that the West has built their economies of this externality, they're trying to prevent developing nations from catching up by utilizing the same externality. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-20-largest-contributors-to-cumulative-CO2-emissions-1850-2021.png https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-2...
fasterik 3y ago
It's because they're industrializing, have higher population growth, and are primarily building coal power plants to keep up with it.

matsemann 3y ago

Well, you're saying "new carbon emissions", of course those are coming from developing countries. It's not the same statement as I said. And of course they should be allowed to improve their quality of life. My point is that an average HNer lives in a country where per capita co2 per person is >10x as much as the poorer countries. And since the average HNer is a well off person with a lavish lifestyle, international travels etc., it's probably closer to 100x the amount of a person in a developing country. Either this lifestyle should only belong to us few and developing countries should remain developing. Or we need to cut back to a sustainable level everyone can share. Which is a reality people don't want to face. > The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc. It's not about "political will". Would you pay more for a product if it's external effects were priced in? Probably not. Hence unsustainable. Our level of consumption is only possible because we don't pay the true price, someone else is.

fasterik 3y ago
Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries. Your implication was that the current problem is the level of consumption in the richest countries. But in reality that only accounts for a small portion of the expected carbon emissions over the next century. We don't need to "cut back" to a sustainable level. A sustainable level is whatever amount of energy we can produce without increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. If we built more nuclear, solar, and wind power, and invested more in carbon capture and storage, we could sustain a much higher level of consumption than we currently are, while emitting less carbon.
- matsemann 3y ago
  You're kinda proving my point. Instead of facing reality as that would mean changes to your lifestyle, you want to keep on going as if nothing is happening and just hope technology will save us.
  - fasterik 3y ago

benhurmarcel 3y ago

CO2 emissions per capita (tons/person/year): Canada 18.72 United States 15.32 China 7.44 Brazil 2.24 Indonesia 2.02 India 1.89

detourdog 3y ago
I’m sure Canada is driven by heating load.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  What drives it doesn't matter. Some areas may simply not be habitable sustainably.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    We do seem to be working hard on making sure Canada is nice and temperate, though.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      It beats -45 I guess... (that's the lowest I ever saw on my outside thermometer on St. Josephs Island). You make a good point though: what is and what isn't habitable will change and as a result there will be substantial movement of people, displaced either by choice or by need.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I understand I was just trying to explain to myself how they were #1 in usage. I was surprised. I was also trying to define the problem since they were outpacing the USA. Looks like Niagara falls only produces about 16 billion BTUs or 4.9 Million kWs.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Up North there are stacks of firewood everywhere and prepping for winter is an exercise in logistics. Also still many oil furnaces in active use.