4 ms·

> 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 mu

> 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.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    You got that backward, more people would have to switch in the small car country. Confusingly, that could be an argument for prioritising change in the large car country - if the smaller number of people made the change easier - but I don't think it would, anyway. You originally said "a larger change to the structure of society" is required if a country emits more carbon per person, and I said this was balls because America could be doing it in exactly the same structural way as China, only more of it. For another example, suppose China is exactly identical to America apart from having an extra 1 billion very poor people who emit no greenhouse gasses at all. Now is there any reason the burden of responsibility, or priority for change, falls on America instead of on that version of China? I say no, that would make no sense.

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.
- card_zero 2y ago
  You got that backward, more people would have to switch in the small car country. Confusingly, that could be an argument for prioritising change in the large car country - if the smaller number of people made the change easier - but I don't think it would, anyway. You originally said "a larger change to the structure of society" is required if a country emits more carbon per person, and I said this was balls because America could be doing it in exactly the same structural way as China, only more of it. For another example, suppose China is exactly identical to America apart from having an extra 1 billion very poor people who emit no greenhouse gasses at all. Now is there any reason the burden of responsibility, or priority for change, falls on America instead of on that version of China? I say no, that would make no sense.