3 ms·

Please cite the raw numbers you used to make your claims, and their sources. I don't doubt that on a per capita basis Canadians emit more than Chinese do; furt

Please cite the raw numbers you used to make your claims, and their sources. I don't doubt that on a per capita basis Canadians emit more than Chinese do; furthermore, China is the source of many of the goods that western nations consume, and so they're producing emissions "for" the western nations in a sort of de facto shell game. However, China has no interest in giving its manufacturing base "back" to the west, and does not take emissions reduction seriously. It is a deceptive claim that Canada is "worse than China"; China is out-emitting Canada, doesn't take emissions reduction seriously, and plans to continue to out-emit Canada into the future.

akira2501 2y ago
> and so they're producing emissions "for" the western nations in a sort of de facto shell game. Then the solution is to ban Chinese imports or tax them to a level that it's no longer economically viable to import them. Problem "solved," right?
- quacked 2y ago
  I mean, it depends on what problem you're trying to solve. If you want to dramatically skyrocket the prices of consumer goods, reduce every American's individual buying power, tank the stock market, crater everyone's retirement accounts, and destabilize the current world economic order, then that would be a terrible move. I kind of want all that to happen, though, so I think it's a good move. I don't like living in a nation that is able to consume at a functionally unlimited level for very little national sacrifice or engagement in manufacturing and production. If manufacturing is inherently pollution-heavy, then it would be healthy for Americans, Canadians, etc. to actually bear the consequences of pollution in their own countries and then decide as nations whether or not to sustain the current levels of production, or curtail their consumption habits properly.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
486sx33 2y ago
It’s impossible for Canadians to “emit” more on a per capita basis than China does, in fact Canada is a net sink of carbon emissions in the world. The “emissions” from Canada are a net negative because of its immense forests! What does China to do their forests? They chop them down
- triceratops 2y ago
  Bit of a double-edged sword, those forests. "Canada's Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation" Slightly unfair because climate change makes those forest more likely to burn down. But still. https://www.wri.org/insights/canada-wildfire-emissions https://www.wri.org/insights/canada-wildfire-emissions
NoLinkToMe 2y ago
I got everything from: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics All your claims in your last sentence I'd like to see sources for as well, because it appears to be the opposite. They're at the forefront of renewable energy production, has ambitious goals for reduction, despite already producing less per capita emissions than much richer countries with cumulatively larger emissions.

akira2501 2y ago

> and so they're producing emissions "for" the western nations in a sort of de facto shell game. Then the solution is to ban Chinese imports or tax them to a level that it's no longer economically viable to import them. Problem "solved," right?

quacked 2y ago
I mean, it depends on what problem you're trying to solve. If you want to dramatically skyrocket the prices of consumer goods, reduce every American's individual buying power, tank the stock market, crater everyone's retirement accounts, and destabilize the current world economic order, then that would be a terrible move. I kind of want all that to happen, though, so I think it's a good move. I don't like living in a nation that is able to consume at a functionally unlimited level for very little national sacrifice or engagement in manufacturing and production. If manufacturing is inherently pollution-heavy, then it would be healthy for Americans, Canadians, etc. to actually bear the consequences of pollution in their own countries and then decide as nations whether or not to sustain the current levels of production, or curtail their consumption habits properly.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

486sx33 2y ago

It’s impossible for Canadians to “emit” more on a per capita basis than China does, in fact Canada is a net sink of carbon emissions in the world. The “emissions” from Canada are a net negative because of its immense forests! What does China to do their forests? They chop them down

triceratops 2y ago
Bit of a double-edged sword, those forests. "Canada's Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation" Slightly unfair because climate change makes those forest more likely to burn down. But still. https://www.wri.org/insights/canada-wildfire-emissions https://www.wri.org/insights/canada-wildfire-emissions

NoLinkToMe 2y ago

I got everything from: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics All your claims in your last sentence I'd like to see sources for as well, because it appears to be the opposite. They're at the forefront of renewable energy production, has ambitious goals for reduction, despite already producing less per capita emissions than much richer countries with cumulatively larger emissions.