3 ms·

Per capita is misleading. China has over 1 billion people more than the US, the majority of them in abject poverty. Same for India; so their per capita number i

Per capita is misleading. China has over 1 billion people more than the US, the majority of them in abject poverty. Same for India; so their per capita number is artificially skewed downward.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Why is that misleading? That doesn't sound like "artificial skew" to me.
- 486sx33 2y ago
  Irresponsibly growing your population doesn’t allow you more emissions, that’s crap!
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Not sure if your answer is intended to be serious or sarcastic. But there is a justifiable argument for it -- you have new humans to take care of, who have needs, and the same moral claim as anyone else in the world nto address those needs using fossil fuels. On the other hand, there's no reason to think that an increase in the number of countries is a valid excuse to increase emissions.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      Leading to the conclusion: those few people (government) who have the greatest influence over the problem (over the countries with the largest emissions in real terms, not per person) somehow don't have the responsibility. It's true that if a country splits into two countries, that doesn't give them a right to emit more collectively. However, it does mean that each country now has little control over what the other one does, and less ability to actually solve the collective problem we want solving, which was the objective here.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        > in real terms I’m not sure how better to dice up emissions then by consumption per person, and by that measure the US is clearly emitting the most https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit... Conversely China is doing the most about emissions > China commissioned as much solar PV as the entire world did in 2022, while its wind additions also grew by 66% year-on-year. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar...
        card_zero 2y ago
        It's great if China is genuinely going renewable. I read about this often. But I also read that they're the biggest producers of coal (confusingly both the biggest importers and exporters, and consumers). Still, maybe that's being phased out. But why do you want to "slice up" emissions at all, if you're interested in reducing them? The problem is a big load of gas. So identify the biggest emitters (in total volume) with the most control over it. Don't say "oh San Marino, you're a really greedy country, with all your tax haven shenanigans and conspicuous consumption and more cars than people, you're the problem", because they really aren't. They may be really awful, but that wasn't the question and isn't something it's viable to fix, nor are they capable of helping more than minutely, unlike a giant authoritarian state with giant emissions, capable of helping a lot. And perhaps, as you point out, already doing so.
        h0l0cube 2y ago
        > But I also read that they're the biggest producers of coal (confusingly both the biggest importers and exporters, and consumers). Yep. And their coal plants are less and less needed. They are essentially becoming peakers (in the same manner as many modern gas plants) for when the sun don't shine and the wind stops blowing. But in terms of the biggest producers of coal, Australia punches above its weight, but rarely does anyone single it out in these discussions. They also are the second biggest per-capita consumers in terms of CO2 emissions.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    China’s population has reached a plateau https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?facet=none&country=CHN~IND~USA~IDN~PAK&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp...
    - downrightmike 2y ago
      ...because they killed millions of girls...
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        Who is 'they' here? Certainly there was a one-child policy. I don't think it could be said that the consequence of female abortion and infanticide was the intention (or even an expected consequence) of the policy. It seems that many people in the comments are set on demonizing the country. For this I think better points to raise are the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur 'reeducation' program, or the usurping of peaceful autonomous neighbors like Tibet and Hong Kong (maybe Taiwan later). But none of this has anything to do with obligations around CO2 emissions, which they are addressing more than any country on the planet, as I've commented elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41012774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41012774
  - defrost 2y ago
    Which county, China or the USofA, had an enforced one child per couple policy for many decades?
ianburrell 2y ago
Are you a time traveler from 1990? China effectively doesn't have anyone in extreme poverty ($1.50/day). They have about the same or lower rate than the US. They do have people in poverty, 24% below $5.50/day ($2000/yr) line. India has also decreased extreme poverty, down to 2% in 2023. At $3.20/day, they declined to 21%. At $5.50, they are at 81%. Most people are poor, but less poor than they were.

Per capita is misleading. China has over 1 billion people more than the US, the majority of them in abject poverty. Same for India; so their per capita number is artificially skewed downward.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

Why is that misleading? That doesn't sound like "artificial skew" to me.

486sx33 2y ago
Irresponsibly growing your population doesn’t allow you more emissions, that’s crap!
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Not sure if your answer is intended to be serious or sarcastic. But there is a justifiable argument for it -- you have new humans to take care of, who have needs, and the same moral claim as anyone else in the world nto address those needs using fossil fuels. On the other hand, there's no reason to think that an increase in the number of countries is a valid excuse to increase emissions.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Leading to the conclusion: those few people (government) who have the greatest influence over the problem (over the countries with the largest emissions in real terms, not per person) somehow don't have the responsibility. It's true that if a country splits into two countries, that doesn't give them a right to emit more collectively. However, it does mean that each country now has little control over what the other one does, and less ability to actually solve the collective problem we want solving, which was the objective here.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > in real terms I’m not sure how better to dice up emissions then by consumption per person, and by that measure the US is clearly emitting the most https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit... Conversely China is doing the most about emissions > China commissioned as much solar PV as the entire world did in 2022, while its wind additions also grew by 66% year-on-year. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar...
      - card_zero 2y ago
        It's great if China is genuinely going renewable. I read about this often. But I also read that they're the biggest producers of coal (confusingly both the biggest importers and exporters, and consumers). Still, maybe that's being phased out. But why do you want to "slice up" emissions at all, if you're interested in reducing them? The problem is a big load of gas. So identify the biggest emitters (in total volume) with the most control over it. Don't say "oh San Marino, you're a really greedy country, with all your tax haven shenanigans and conspicuous consumption and more cars than people, you're the problem", because they really aren't. They may be really awful, but that wasn't the question and isn't something it's viable to fix, nor are they capable of helping more than minutely, unlike a giant authoritarian state with giant emissions, capable of helping a lot. And perhaps, as you point out, already doing so.
        h0l0cube 2y ago
        > But I also read that they're the biggest producers of coal (confusingly both the biggest importers and exporters, and consumers). Yep. And their coal plants are less and less needed. They are essentially becoming peakers (in the same manner as many modern gas plants) for when the sun don't shine and the wind stops blowing. But in terms of the biggest producers of coal, Australia punches above its weight, but rarely does anyone single it out in these discussions. They also are the second biggest per-capita consumers in terms of CO2 emissions.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  China’s population has reached a plateau https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?facet=none&country=CHN~IND~USA~IDN~PAK&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp...
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    ...because they killed millions of girls...
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      Who is 'they' here? Certainly there was a one-child policy. I don't think it could be said that the consequence of female abortion and infanticide was the intention (or even an expected consequence) of the policy. It seems that many people in the comments are set on demonizing the country. For this I think better points to raise are the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur 'reeducation' program, or the usurping of peaceful autonomous neighbors like Tibet and Hong Kong (maybe Taiwan later). But none of this has anything to do with obligations around CO2 emissions, which they are addressing more than any country on the planet, as I've commented elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41012774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41012774
- defrost 2y ago
  Which county, China or the USofA, had an enforced one child per couple policy for many decades?

ianburrell 2y ago

Are you a time traveler from 1990? China effectively doesn't have anyone in extreme poverty ($1.50/day). They have about the same or lower rate than the US. They do have people in poverty, 24% below $5.50/day ($2000/yr) line. India has also decreased extreme poverty, down to 2% in 2023. At $3.20/day, they declined to 21%. At $5.50, they are at 81%. Most people are poor, but less poor than they were.