2 ms·
> 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 em
by 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...
- _djo_ 2y agoWhat part of per capita are you not getting?
- mytailorisrich 2y agoNo snark, please. It seems that you are not getting what I wrote: Regarding per capita figure the thing to keep in mind is that China used to be very poor and has been developing. Per capita figures therefore started very low and have been increasing rapidly with development, and are still much lower than the US's. This is also why India's figures are quite low. Regading overall figures, obviously then what is relevant is the overall population, as explained. Can't repeat the same thing over and over if you refuse to engage, so good night and good luck.
- _djo_ 2y agoI apologise for the snark, my frustration for the better of me. The point I’m trying to make is that I’ve been basing all my points on per capita emissions, not overall figures, and that China’s per capita figures are no longer much lower than those of the US and within just a few years at the current rate they will eclipse US figures. That means that it’s not just about them developing, it’s also about them developing in an extremely emissions-heavy way, to a point where if nothing is done there’s a possibility that before long China will have per capita emissions several times larger than that of the US. Of course, given their population that also means their overall emissions will be huge, but that’s a separate thing.