3 ms·

That's why I mentioned development, which is key to understand current status, evolution and where things are going. The world simply cannot emit like the US d

That's why I mentioned development, which is key to understand current status, evolution and where things are going. The world simply cannot emit like the US do per capita. China's emissions have increased because the country has been developing and Chinese are still quite poorer on average than Americans. India is still low because they are behind in terms of development and they don't (yet) produce for the world. I am not sure what point you are making. My point is simply that population varies wildly per country so pointing the finger at China because they emit the most as a country is nonsensical. Emission per capita is a much better metric. I am not sure there is any way to combine development and drastic reduction in emissions with 10 billion people on the planet, but I am sure that the US are doing worse than China when you do a valid comparison that must take population into account. > Moreover, this happened while US manufacturing output remained fairly constant. The issue there is that output is measured in dollar value, not raw volume or mass of stuff, which may be better correlated with emissions. Many intrinsically polluting and lower value industries have been outsourced to China with output imported.

_djo_ 2y ago
I’m saying that before very long China will emit more per capita than the US does too, because US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. So, no, even when you take population into account China is a bad emitter and not doing nearly enough to invest in decarbonising their economy in the same way the US and EU have.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  China is doing a lot to decarbonise its economy, probably more than anyone, and is still poorer than the US. Again, you also need to take into account that the US and EU have outsourced emissions to China, which needed that to develop. Still the US emit a huge amount per capita so it's disingenuous so claim that China is a bad emitter, which feels like the US is trying too hard to deflect.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    They’re clearly not doing more than anyone given that their emissions rate per capita and as a proportion of industrial output keeps climbing. Claiming the US and EU ‘outsourced’ emissions to China is an overly simplistic view, and one that ignores the way China developed its own industry and targeted the developing world as a market for its goods long before US and EU companies outsourced en masse. China now emits more than 60% as much per capita as the US, where thirty years ago it was more like 5%. In fact, China’s emissions have been so high in the past thirty years that their total emissions are now also up to more than half of all US emissions since 1850. So, yes, China is a bad emitter and has already contributed more to global warming than anyone other than the US. What’s more, their emissions growth rate remains unsustainably high. Also, none of what I’ve been saying is about deflecting blame from the US. It’s had a huge part to play in global warming too, and needs to do a lot more.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      > They’re clearly not doing more than anyone given that their emissions rate per capita and as a proportion of industrial output keeps climbing. > China now emits more than 60% as much per capita as the US, where thirty years ago it was more like 5% China was very poor and has been developing... It does not mean that they aren't doing a lot, and probably more than the US do. > In fact, China’s emissions have been so high in the past thirty years that their total emissions are now also up to more than half of all US emissions since 1850. Chinas has more than 1.4 billion people now while the US have 333 million and 23 million in 1850... Still China will never reach the emissions per capita level that the US did in the past. > China is a bad emitter and has already contributed more to global warming than anyone other than the US That's a highly disingenuous claim, again ignoring population and development, as well as size of global economy. If you keep ignoring that China has a massive population and is still a developing country, with inhabitants still poorer on average than Europeans and Americans then there cannot be an honest discussion. What's the US' "excuse" for emitting more than even the EU per capita? They have the best technology and unlimited funds. But, oh yes, it's China who's the bad emitter...
      - 2y ago
- maxglute 2y ago
  >US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. It's sus to ascribe countries as bad emitters because they're developing higher QoL instead of choosing to be stuck as subsistence shitholes with low per capita emissions. The only way for countries to stay at subsistence/developing per capita emissions is to stay susbsistent/developing. Of course some wierd people think that's fine. A fairer description is PRC's moderate per capita emissions are converging with US high per capita emissions as QoL improves because average PRC citizen wants to live as well as average citizens of high consumption developed economies. But due to various physical constraints - less square footage per, less flying, less car ownership per capita due to density, PRC unlikely to pass US per capita - they're simply not setup to enable car centric, house+lawn levels of consumption. But PRC converging with west in QoL = PRC still primed for more catchup consumption = per capita emissions still has room to climb, while transitioning energy mix tries to sustain growth via greener methods of generation. Meanwhile US's process of "decarbonization" = also becoming net oil exporter and largest lng exporter, the latter with evidence to be much more poluting than coal due to leaky infra. Which BTW adds, ~3 tons co2 per capita to US produced emissions, which single handly negates last 15 years of US "falling" emissions. Which BTW should be accounted for US emissions just like PRC exports are calculated in PRC emissions, but conveniently isn't. Meanwhile, PRC upgrading domestic coal to be cleaner, ceased construction of coal plants abroad, is net exporting green energy. That's without bringing population growth/decline trends. US adding 1.5m to US tier of emissions is like adding 12m Indians per year.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    Whether a country is a bad emitter is a factor of its total and per capita emissions. It has no inherent moral meaning, but it has serious implications for how we can slow down climate change. At current rates, China is going to be a larger per capita polluter than the US ever was, because it’s still choosing the quick, cheap, and dirty approach to so much of its industry including those focused only internally. As a result of poor central planning and incentives, it has built and then destroyed entire apartment blocks in cities across the country without them ever having been in use. Its per capita emissions rate is already higher than that of the EU average. Nobody on here is saying that China or any other country shouldn’t develop. It’s expected that there’ll be a rise in per capita emissions as a result. But that doesn’t mean that China has the right to emit as much as it can just in the name of development, especially when so many lower carbon options exist. Again, this isn’t a moral judgement, where adding focus to China means taking focus away from the US and letting it do what it wants. Nor is it a situation where we can or should give anyone a free pass just because of history. Instead, we’re in a situation where we’re collectively screwed unless we can reduce total emissions and China has to be an integral part of that reduction too. Just as the US has to be.

_djo_ 2y ago

I’m saying that before very long China will emit more per capita than the US does too, because US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. So, no, even when you take population into account China is a bad emitter and not doing nearly enough to invest in decarbonising their economy in the same way the US and EU have.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
China is doing a lot to decarbonise its economy, probably more than anyone, and is still poorer than the US. Again, you also need to take into account that the US and EU have outsourced emissions to China, which needed that to develop. Still the US emit a huge amount per capita so it's disingenuous so claim that China is a bad emitter, which feels like the US is trying too hard to deflect.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  They’re clearly not doing more than anyone given that their emissions rate per capita and as a proportion of industrial output keeps climbing. Claiming the US and EU ‘outsourced’ emissions to China is an overly simplistic view, and one that ignores the way China developed its own industry and targeted the developing world as a market for its goods long before US and EU companies outsourced en masse. China now emits more than 60% as much per capita as the US, where thirty years ago it was more like 5%. In fact, China’s emissions have been so high in the past thirty years that their total emissions are now also up to more than half of all US emissions since 1850. So, yes, China is a bad emitter and has already contributed more to global warming than anyone other than the US. What’s more, their emissions growth rate remains unsustainably high. Also, none of what I’ve been saying is about deflecting blame from the US. It’s had a huge part to play in global warming too, and needs to do a lot more.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    > They’re clearly not doing more than anyone given that their emissions rate per capita and as a proportion of industrial output keeps climbing. > China now emits more than 60% as much per capita as the US, where thirty years ago it was more like 5% China was very poor and has been developing... It does not mean that they aren't doing a lot, and probably more than the US do. > In fact, China’s emissions have been so high in the past thirty years that their total emissions are now also up to more than half of all US emissions since 1850. Chinas has more than 1.4 billion people now while the US have 333 million and 23 million in 1850... Still China will never reach the emissions per capita level that the US did in the past. > China is a bad emitter and has already contributed more to global warming than anyone other than the US That's a highly disingenuous claim, again ignoring population and development, as well as size of global economy. If you keep ignoring that China has a massive population and is still a developing country, with inhabitants still poorer on average than Europeans and Americans then there cannot be an honest discussion. What's the US' "excuse" for emitting more than even the EU per capita? They have the best technology and unlimited funds. But, oh yes, it's China who's the bad emitter...
    - 2y ago
maxglute 2y ago
>US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. It's sus to ascribe countries as bad emitters because they're developing higher QoL instead of choosing to be stuck as subsistence shitholes with low per capita emissions. The only way for countries to stay at subsistence/developing per capita emissions is to stay susbsistent/developing. Of course some wierd people think that's fine. A fairer description is PRC's moderate per capita emissions are converging with US high per capita emissions as QoL improves because average PRC citizen wants to live as well as average citizens of high consumption developed economies. But due to various physical constraints - less square footage per, less flying, less car ownership per capita due to density, PRC unlikely to pass US per capita - they're simply not setup to enable car centric, house+lawn levels of consumption. But PRC converging with west in QoL = PRC still primed for more catchup consumption = per capita emissions still has room to climb, while transitioning energy mix tries to sustain growth via greener methods of generation. Meanwhile US's process of "decarbonization" = also becoming net oil exporter and largest lng exporter, the latter with evidence to be much more poluting than coal due to leaky infra. Which BTW adds, ~3 tons co2 per capita to US produced emissions, which single handly negates last 15 years of US "falling" emissions. Which BTW should be accounted for US emissions just like PRC exports are calculated in PRC emissions, but conveniently isn't. Meanwhile, PRC upgrading domestic coal to be cleaner, ceased construction of coal plants abroad, is net exporting green energy. That's without bringing population growth/decline trends. US adding 1.5m to US tier of emissions is like adding 12m Indians per year.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  Whether a country is a bad emitter is a factor of its total and per capita emissions. It has no inherent moral meaning, but it has serious implications for how we can slow down climate change. At current rates, China is going to be a larger per capita polluter than the US ever was, because it’s still choosing the quick, cheap, and dirty approach to so much of its industry including those focused only internally. As a result of poor central planning and incentives, it has built and then destroyed entire apartment blocks in cities across the country without them ever having been in use. Its per capita emissions rate is already higher than that of the EU average. Nobody on here is saying that China or any other country shouldn’t develop. It’s expected that there’ll be a rise in per capita emissions as a result. But that doesn’t mean that China has the right to emit as much as it can just in the name of development, especially when so many lower carbon options exist. Again, this isn’t a moral judgement, where adding focus to China means taking focus away from the US and letting it do what it wants. Nor is it a situation where we can or should give anyone a free pass just because of history. Instead, we’re in a situation where we’re collectively screwed unless we can reduce total emissions and China has to be an integral part of that reduction too. Just as the US has to be.