4 ms·

The down votes are because it's not a thoughtful interpretation. Chinas population is whole integer multiples of the US population. And the while the growth is

by yareal 3y ago

The down votes are because it's not a thoughtful interpretation. Chinas population is whole integer multiples of the US population. And the while the growth is important, so is the area under the curve. The U.S. has been pumping out emissions the whole time, while China is just now reaching the same total output.

roenxi 3y ago
Per-capita numbers are irrelevant if we're interested in outcomes. Chemistry doesn't stop and calculate the population responsible for a chemical emission before reacting. History is also irrelevant for that matter, given that the past cannot be changed and has little bearing on the present or future of this issue.
- yareal 3y ago
  That's nonsense. Per person efficiency is critical. China is more efficient than the U.S. in co2, we should learn from that. We need efficiency and a total reduction.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    If you get 50% more efficient in pollution/person in the US (which is already hard to see happening), total pollution will continue to increase as more people globally become wealthy. And, if they did become 50% more efficient, that doesn't change the eventual amount of pollution - it just doubles the time taken to get there. We'd still burn through all the available fossil fuels over the course of about 2 centuries so it is still all going to end up in the atmosphere. Per-capita efficiency isn't going to do anything. At least not anything that the climate-change crowd will like. Efficiency is a welcome thing for its own sake.
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      So US emissions are fine, everyone else and especially China should lower, while making most of your stuff.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        US emissions are fine, everyone else and especially China should deploy as much cheap energy as they can without regard for carbon emissions. And I am very thankful to the Chinese for all the stuff they have made me, it is gratefully received.

by yareal 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

Per-capita numbers are irrelevant if we're interested in outcomes. Chemistry doesn't stop and calculate the population responsible for a chemical emission before reacting. History is also irrelevant for that matter, given that the past cannot be changed and has little bearing on the present or future of this issue.

yareal 3y ago
That's nonsense. Per person efficiency is critical. China is more efficient than the U.S. in co2, we should learn from that. We need efficiency and a total reduction.
- roenxi 3y ago
  If you get 50% more efficient in pollution/person in the US (which is already hard to see happening), total pollution will continue to increase as more people globally become wealthy. And, if they did become 50% more efficient, that doesn't change the eventual amount of pollution - it just doubles the time taken to get there. We'd still burn through all the available fossil fuels over the course of about 2 centuries so it is still all going to end up in the atmosphere. Per-capita efficiency isn't going to do anything. At least not anything that the climate-change crowd will like. Efficiency is a welcome thing for its own sake.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    So US emissions are fine, everyone else and especially China should lower, while making most of your stuff.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      US emissions are fine, everyone else and especially China should deploy as much cheap energy as they can without regard for carbon emissions. And I am very thankful to the Chinese for all the stuff they have made me, it is gratefully received.