3 ms·

Another way to look at it is that if everyone was like Switzerland the CO2 (equiv.) emissions per capita would still rise and continue to cause climate change a

by Y-bar 3y ago

Another way to look at it is that if everyone was like Switzerland the CO2 (equiv.) emissions per capita would still rise and continue to cause climate change and injury. Also, Switzerland has increased their consumption-based emissions by over 38% since 1990 while in the same time frame countries like France has reduced by 15%, Germany reduced by 30%, UK reduced by 23%, EU27 reduced by 20%.

bschne 3y ago
Sure, again, I think we should do better! I am merely wondering about the legal viewpoint on this because of causal connections between Swiss actions and the outcome for Swiss citizens, which are a lot more murky here than if e.g. our government would randomly imprison dissenters or something like that.
misja111 3y ago
Following your analogy, could some inhabitant of Switzerland then be sued for adding an airco to his house or using a coal heater to warm it? Sure, just looking at this one person, it doesn't have much effect on Switzerland's emissions as a whole. But think what would happen if everyone was like him .. I find this court ruling strange. Sure you could argue that Switzerland should have done more. But does its lack of action make Switzerland liable for the discomfort that these women are experiencing because of global climate change?
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  > But does its lack of action make Switzerland liable for the discomfort that these women are experiencing because of global climate change? Yes, you can read the judge's ruling to see the reasoning of a legal expert.
- Y-bar 3y ago
  > the discomfort that these women are experiencing Is "discomfort" really how you frame the scientific consensus that climate change cause harm, and disproportionately so to elderly people or just a factor of transdiction?
belorn 3y ago
If everyone was like Switzerland the CO2 (equiv.) emissions would go significantly down. Their electricity grid is made of hydro and nuclear, and fossil fuels in the energy grid are the single highest source of emissions by a factor of 2. Consumption-based emissions would also go down since since energy use is a large aspect in production of products. Transportation would likely rise given how much mountains there are, but at the same time, their location in Europe is fairly central making transportation routes a bit shorter. At the same time they lack oceans, and ocean based transportation has both great and terrible emissions based on how one chooses to look at it. Naturally one can not make every country to be identical to every other. Geographical differences, population differences, cultural and historical differences all play a major role in defining what a country is and how that effects statistics around emissions. Per capita emissions in particular is very much influenced by things like historical wars and genocides, borders and maps, trade, agriculture, and much more. Per capital calculations are one of multiple mathematical data points where if we normalize and apply additional data points we can find some indication of possible places where savings in emissions might occur. It can not be applied universally to all countries as if all countries could be made equivalent.
- Y-bar 3y ago
  As per the source given by GP (bschne). I bet the number you are seeing when you say "emissions would go significantly down" is excluding emissions produced externally because you would be correct if only domestically produced emissions were counted. Domestic _energy_ production is just a fraction of the emissions footprint: Switzerland _literally_ has a 236% per capita CO2 equivalent consumption-based emissions when including trade and it is slowly rising. It is larger than France (36%) It is larger than Germany (22%) It is larger than UK (48%) It is larger than Namibia (146%) It is larger than USA (11%)
  - belorn 3y ago
    The overall emissions in the world would distinctly go down if all countries in the world stopped burning fossil fuels. Energy, heat and transportation are the main sources of fossil fuel consumption, and energy and heat is almost exclusively fossil free in Switzerland. Since you brought up examples like Namibia, what would happen to emissions if Switzerland invaded Namibia and took over that country? Switzerland per capital emissions would drastically go down, but global emissions would obvious be unchanged.

by Y-bar 3y ago

bschne 3y ago

Sure, again, I think we should do better! I am merely wondering about the legal viewpoint on this because of causal connections between Swiss actions and the outcome for Swiss citizens, which are a lot more murky here than if e.g. our government would randomly imprison dissenters or something like that.

misja111 3y ago

Following your analogy, could some inhabitant of Switzerland then be sued for adding an airco to his house or using a coal heater to warm it? Sure, just looking at this one person, it doesn't have much effect on Switzerland's emissions as a whole. But think what would happen if everyone was like him .. I find this court ruling strange. Sure you could argue that Switzerland should have done more. But does its lack of action make Switzerland liable for the discomfort that these women are experiencing because of global climate change?

AlecSchueler 3y ago
> But does its lack of action make Switzerland liable for the discomfort that these women are experiencing because of global climate change? Yes, you can read the judge's ruling to see the reasoning of a legal expert.
Y-bar 3y ago
> the discomfort that these women are experiencing Is "discomfort" really how you frame the scientific consensus that climate change cause harm, and disproportionately so to elderly people or just a factor of transdiction?

belorn 3y ago

If everyone was like Switzerland the CO2 (equiv.) emissions would go significantly down. Their electricity grid is made of hydro and nuclear, and fossil fuels in the energy grid are the single highest source of emissions by a factor of 2. Consumption-based emissions would also go down since since energy use is a large aspect in production of products. Transportation would likely rise given how much mountains there are, but at the same time, their location in Europe is fairly central making transportation routes a bit shorter. At the same time they lack oceans, and ocean based transportation has both great and terrible emissions based on how one chooses to look at it. Naturally one can not make every country to be identical to every other. Geographical differences, population differences, cultural and historical differences all play a major role in defining what a country is and how that effects statistics around emissions. Per capita emissions in particular is very much influenced by things like historical wars and genocides, borders and maps, trade, agriculture, and much more. Per capital calculations are one of multiple mathematical data points where if we normalize and apply additional data points we can find some indication of possible places where savings in emissions might occur. It can not be applied universally to all countries as if all countries could be made equivalent.

Y-bar 3y ago
As per the source given by GP (bschne). I bet the number you are seeing when you say "emissions would go significantly down" is excluding emissions produced externally because you would be correct if only domestically produced emissions were counted. Domestic _energy_ production is just a fraction of the emissions footprint: Switzerland _literally_ has a 236% per capita CO2 equivalent consumption-based emissions when including trade and it is slowly rising. It is larger than France (36%) It is larger than Germany (22%) It is larger than UK (48%) It is larger than Namibia (146%) It is larger than USA (11%)
- belorn 3y ago
  The overall emissions in the world would distinctly go down if all countries in the world stopped burning fossil fuels. Energy, heat and transportation are the main sources of fossil fuel consumption, and energy and heat is almost exclusively fossil free in Switzerland. Since you brought up examples like Namibia, what would happen to emissions if Switzerland invaded Namibia and took over that country? Switzerland per capital emissions would drastically go down, but global emissions would obvious be unchanged.