4 ms·

These numbers say more about the US than China, if you control for population. And also, I keep seeing those numbers thrown around, but it's never clear if it'

by fmobus 2y ago

These numbers say more about the US than China, if you control for population. And also, I keep seeing those numbers thrown around, but it's never clear if it's on the production side or the consumption side. If it's the production side CO2, then we have to remember that a huge fraction of carbon emitted by China is for the benefit of consumers in the western countries. Which makes you think, just wtf is the us doing that emits that much carbon per capita?

card_zero 2y ago
> if you control for population But why would you control for population? So there are a vast number of Chinese who can't afford a large share of China's emissions, so what? What's your mindset here, that we have to determine the most guilty individual person and ignore governments? There may be lots of people in China but it's one government and it's emitting a lot, in absolute terms. Is Liechtenstein (population under 40,000) potentially a huge priority for us to consider in regard to tackling emissions? Their per capita figure could be enormous. You should not care even if it is, because in absolute terms it will be trivial. To answer your question: transport. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector-stacked?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector-s... If you switch to China, this slice is taken over by manufacturing and construction.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  > But why would you control for population? Because the amount of changes that a society has to make in how it lives to get to net zero is determined by how much each person emits. The average US person emits 15 tons CO2 every year (there is distribution about it). The average China person emits half that. So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. Of course, it is better to subdivide even further. One way that is popular is to estimate how much do super rich emit and what the average emit, and of course the super rich have to be reigned in a lot more than the average person.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - card_zero 2y ago
    > So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. That's not obvious at all. Suppose the difference in per capita emissions between country A and country C is that in country A they drive big cars and in country C they drive small ones. Well, both countries ought to stop using internal combustion engines. How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars? And as for "reigning in" the super rich, what does that mean? You want to tax them more and ban yachts, perhaps? Do you think this sector is at all significant in real terms, in terms if the slice of actual effect these very few high individual emitters have on total emissions compared to general transport, power generation, industry and construction? Focussing on any individual's carbon footprint is not the way. It's been tried since the 90s and it doesn't work, in much the same way that John Lennon didn't bring about world peace despite getting a large number of fans to agree that it sounded like a good idea. The problem there was that they didn't have the power to decide the matter. In the case of climate change, specific policies about fuel for power generation and transport can decide it. Taxing the rich is just a complete sideshow that probably happens to please you for unrelated reasons.
    - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
      > How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars? We are never actually going to get to zero carbon emissions. There are many industrial operations that will emit CO2. The hope is that we can plant enough trees that the sucked CO2 is equal to those non-replaceable emissions to get to net zero. In your specific case of cars, the production of cars does emit CO2. And production of larger cars does emit more CO2. Whether the electricity used for them is from solar, wind or nuclear, there are emissions associated with the production of panels, wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Constructing and maintaining roads also emits CO2, and larger cars require thicker and broader roads. So, a country with smaller cars will emit less CO2 ceteris paribus. Hence it is indeed better if the average car size is smaller. Or if people start owning fewer cars and take the bus instead. And of course more people in the large-car country will have to switch to the bus than in the small-car country for the same reduction in emissions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 2y ago
  > But why would you control for population? Because the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. If we take whatever total amount of CO2 emissions per year we decide the world needs to stay under and divide that up giving each country an equal share you get an unstable result. For example let's say we agree on 4 x 10^10 tons of CO2/year. There are around 200 countries, so each country gets 2 x 10^8 tons per year. Under that each person in Liechtenstein could live a lifestyle that required 5 000 tons of CO2/year. In the US each person could only live a 0.6 ton CO2 lifestyle, which would require each person on average to cut their CO2 by a factor of 25. That's around what they use in Zimbabwe today. In China each person could only live a live a 0.14 ton CO2 lifestyle, and would have to cut emissions by a factor of almost 60 to do that. That's around what Ugandans use today. But wait...what if the US holds a constitutional convention and reorganizes? It could dissolve and each of its 50 states could become an independent country, and those countries could form a strong trade and defense alliance by treaty to make it so that they effectively share the CO2 shares. Under that the world has around 250 countries instead of 200, so the per country share drops to 1.6 x 10^8 tons per year, but the American Union collection of 50 countries together has shares totaling nearly 8 x 10^9 tons. The people of the American Union can now enjoy a 24 ton lifestyle which is about 60% more than they have now. China could do the same with their 33 provinces. In that world the share per country is 1.4 x 10^8 tons and the 33 countries that form the Chinese Union would have 33 shares giving them 4.6 x 10^9 tons, or 3.3 tons per person. But why stop there? China is pretty good at tackling big things, so instead of turning each province into a separate country and putting together a 33 country Chinese Union, why not make each prefecture a country and put together a 333 country Chinese Union? In that world, with ~200 countries not in the American Union or Chinese Union, 50 American Union countries, and 333 Chinese Union countries the per country share is 6.3 x 10^7 tons. The Chinese Union would have 333 of those shares giving them 2.1 x 10^10 tons or 15 tons per person which is a current US-level amount. The American Union would have 50 shares giving 3 x 10^9 tons or 9.6 tons per person. The EU would have 3.8 tons per person. Liechtenstein would have to make do with 1600 tons per person. In this system any country can get a bigger share of the world's CO2 emissions budget by splitting and forming alliances among the newly formed countries. The limit of this would be a world of thousands or even millions of micro-countries, and where the CO2 allowance per person is about the same in all of them. That's why mathematically per capita is the correct way to allocate.

by fmobus 2y ago

card_zero 2y ago

> if you control for population But why would you control for population? So there are a vast number of Chinese who can't afford a large share of China's emissions, so what? What's your mindset here, that we have to determine the most guilty individual person and ignore governments? There may be lots of people in China but it's one government and it's emitting a lot, in absolute terms. Is Liechtenstein (population under 40,000) potentially a huge priority for us to consider in regard to tackling emissions? Their per capita figure could be enormous. You should not care even if it is, because in absolute terms it will be trivial. To answer your question: transport. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector-stacked?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector-s... If you switch to China, this slice is taken over by manufacturing and construction.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago
> But why would you control for population? Because the amount of changes that a society has to make in how it lives to get to net zero is determined by how much each person emits. The average US person emits 15 tons CO2 every year (there is distribution about it). The average China person emits half that. So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. Of course, it is better to subdivide even further. One way that is popular is to estimate how much do super rich emit and what the average emit, and of course the super rich have to be reigned in a lot more than the average person.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- card_zero 2y ago
  > So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. That's not obvious at all. Suppose the difference in per capita emissions between country A and country C is that in country A they drive big cars and in country C they drive small ones. Well, both countries ought to stop using internal combustion engines. How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars? And as for "reigning in" the super rich, what does that mean? You want to tax them more and ban yachts, perhaps? Do you think this sector is at all significant in real terms, in terms if the slice of actual effect these very few high individual emitters have on total emissions compared to general transport, power generation, industry and construction? Focussing on any individual's carbon footprint is not the way. It's been tried since the 90s and it doesn't work, in much the same way that John Lennon didn't bring about world peace despite getting a large number of fans to agree that it sounded like a good idea. The problem there was that they didn't have the power to decide the matter. In the case of climate change, specific policies about fuel for power generation and transport can decide it. Taxing the rich is just a complete sideshow that probably happens to please you for unrelated reasons.
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    > How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars? We are never actually going to get to zero carbon emissions. There are many industrial operations that will emit CO2. The hope is that we can plant enough trees that the sucked CO2 is equal to those non-replaceable emissions to get to net zero. In your specific case of cars, the production of cars does emit CO2. And production of larger cars does emit more CO2. Whether the electricity used for them is from solar, wind or nuclear, there are emissions associated with the production of panels, wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Constructing and maintaining roads also emits CO2, and larger cars require thicker and broader roads. So, a country with smaller cars will emit less CO2 ceteris paribus. Hence it is indeed better if the average car size is smaller. Or if people start owning fewer cars and take the bus instead. And of course more people in the large-car country will have to switch to the bus than in the small-car country for the same reduction in emissions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tzs 2y ago
> But why would you control for population? Because the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. If we take whatever total amount of CO2 emissions per year we decide the world needs to stay under and divide that up giving each country an equal share you get an unstable result. For example let's say we agree on 4 x 10^10 tons of CO2/year. There are around 200 countries, so each country gets 2 x 10^8 tons per year. Under that each person in Liechtenstein could live a lifestyle that required 5 000 tons of CO2/year. In the US each person could only live a 0.6 ton CO2 lifestyle, which would require each person on average to cut their CO2 by a factor of 25. That's around what they use in Zimbabwe today. In China each person could only live a live a 0.14 ton CO2 lifestyle, and would have to cut emissions by a factor of almost 60 to do that. That's around what Ugandans use today. But wait...what if the US holds a constitutional convention and reorganizes? It could dissolve and each of its 50 states could become an independent country, and those countries could form a strong trade and defense alliance by treaty to make it so that they effectively share the CO2 shares. Under that the world has around 250 countries instead of 200, so the per country share drops to 1.6 x 10^8 tons per year, but the American Union collection of 50 countries together has shares totaling nearly 8 x 10^9 tons. The people of the American Union can now enjoy a 24 ton lifestyle which is about 60% more than they have now. China could do the same with their 33 provinces. In that world the share per country is 1.4 x 10^8 tons and the 33 countries that form the Chinese Union would have 33 shares giving them 4.6 x 10^9 tons, or 3.3 tons per person. But why stop there? China is pretty good at tackling big things, so instead of turning each province into a separate country and putting together a 33 country Chinese Union, why not make each prefecture a country and put together a 333 country Chinese Union? In that world, with ~200 countries not in the American Union or Chinese Union, 50 American Union countries, and 333 Chinese Union countries the per country share is 6.3 x 10^7 tons. The Chinese Union would have 333 of those shares giving them 2.1 x 10^10 tons or 15 tons per person which is a current US-level amount. The American Union would have 50 shares giving 3 x 10^9 tons or 9.6 tons per person. The EU would have 3.8 tons per person. Liechtenstein would have to make do with 1600 tons per person. In this system any country can get a bigger share of the world's CO2 emissions budget by splitting and forming alliances among the newly formed countries. The limit of this would be a world of thousands or even millions of micro-countries, and where the CO2 allowance per person is about the same in all of them. That's why mathematically per capita is the correct way to allocate.