4 ms·

Let me fix that for you. You actually meant: United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution (https://ourworldind

by lbrito 2y ago

Let me fix that for you. You actually meant: United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...). Climate change didn't start today, so it makes no sense to blame whoever happens to be today's top polluter as the culprits. China emitted half the CO2 as the US, and India around 10%. Calling out those two countries is absurd.

outside1234 2y ago
You are both right. It is both worth calling out historical polluters and also making sure we push back on creating more polluting energy sources.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
These graphs are misleading because they overestimate the "relevant emissions" of the global south countries. What I mean is that it is possible to emit some CO2 and it will just get absorbed and transformed back to O2 via natural processes in a sustainable fashion. So really from a country's emissions you should subtract off this number in some per capita fashion to get the actually relevant or excess emissions. If you do that I think you will find that a good number of countries have never emitted any excess emissions at all, and more than half have barely emitted anything of consequence. The blame on US, Europe, Canada, Australia will be even bigger than the ~70% shown on this chart.
OptionOfT 2y ago
The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... The EU and USA are both shrinking, unlike China and India which are growing. We should all be cutting. The other part that I actually don't like about any of these metrics is that they don't take land-mass and population into account. Ideally you'd measure CO2 emissions per capita per square km/mile and compare that.
- __rito__ 2y ago
  > The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. In this case, yes, you can. US, EU became developed by polluting first at the cost of the rest of the world, and now can't simply morally tell India, China to remain poor and undeveloped because that might harm the environment. You should also keep in mind that, US/EU's manufacture is done in China and other countries in Asia, and when you factor in consumption as well as production, even today, US/EU will fair very poorly.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    This ignores the progress of technology and available options.
    - __rito__ 2y ago
      Who will pay for it? Will countries with a head start, who got rich by harming the environment- subsidize, say, infrastructure for environment friendly steel processing in Indian plants? Or will US/UK taxpayer pay for EV subsidies for Indian people? No, Right?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im saying the costs and options are differnt now than in the 1900s
  - OptionOfT 2y ago
    So a company A pollutes a river, we all learn about the downsides of dumping chemical X into the water and regulate it to 1/100s of what was done. Now company B comes along, and they are allowed to pollute the river way above what is now accepted as OK, but because company A did so, it's allowed?
    - __rito__ 2y ago
      Companies are different from people. Very poor analogy. A better one would be a cities or provinces. And, yes, I believe every city should be given the chance to develop at the risk of short term harm to the environment. People from City B don't deserve to remain poor just because City A had a head-start and polluted the river first. Ideal scenario would be City/State A getting heavily taxed to subsidize City/State B's investment in renewables, people's education and healthcare, rehabilitation of people to other sectors, etc. Would you agree to taxing US and UK each 500-700 billion dollars each year and the money flow to India so that India closes all coal plants and citizens get 90% subsidy in electric cars, or to develop environment friendly steel processing? You wouldn’t agree to it. Why would US/UK taxpayer pay for India's infra and people? Right? So, stop virtue and moral signalling from the high tower you are on. Let India and China develop themselves. It's also very poor looking when it comes from UK. They got rich by exploiting India. And now they just can't say- "remain undeveloped because environment".
dmitrygr 2y ago
Who is growing and who is shrinking? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think the 2nd figure here in terms of per capita is more informative. https://qery.no/new-2023-global-emissions-data/ https://qery.no/new-2023-global-emissions-data/
Muromec 2y ago
>United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution Not just that. US and Europe got into the position of prosperity and hegemony we are enjoying right now thanks to industrial revolution which emitted all that CO2 in the first place.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Climate change didn't start today, so it makes no sense to blame whoever happens to be today's top polluter as the culprits Blame isn't helpful, period. Industrialised nations industrialised by polluting. But CO2 in the air is orders of magnitude more difficult to recover than carbon unburnt. Most CO2 was emitted by the industrialised world. Most CO2 we can prevent from being emitted will come from India and China. There is no good guy bad guy here, just places with a higher or lower return on action.

by lbrito 2y ago

outside1234 2y ago

You are both right. It is both worth calling out historical polluters and also making sure we push back on creating more polluting energy sources.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

These graphs are misleading because they overestimate the "relevant emissions" of the global south countries. What I mean is that it is possible to emit some CO2 and it will just get absorbed and transformed back to O2 via natural processes in a sustainable fashion. So really from a country's emissions you should subtract off this number in some per capita fashion to get the actually relevant or excess emissions. If you do that I think you will find that a good number of countries have never emitted any excess emissions at all, and more than half have barely emitted anything of consequence. The blame on US, Europe, Canada, Australia will be even bigger than the ~70% shown on this chart.

OptionOfT 2y ago

The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... The EU and USA are both shrinking, unlike China and India which are growing. We should all be cutting. The other part that I actually don't like about any of these metrics is that they don't take land-mass and population into account. Ideally you'd measure CO2 emissions per capita per square km/mile and compare that.

__rito__ 2y ago
> The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. In this case, yes, you can. US, EU became developed by polluting first at the cost of the rest of the world, and now can't simply morally tell India, China to remain poor and undeveloped because that might harm the environment. You should also keep in mind that, US/EU's manufacture is done in China and other countries in Asia, and when you factor in consumption as well as production, even today, US/EU will fair very poorly.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This ignores the progress of technology and available options.
  - __rito__ 2y ago
    Who will pay for it? Will countries with a head start, who got rich by harming the environment- subsidize, say, infrastructure for environment friendly steel processing in Indian plants? Or will US/UK taxpayer pay for EV subsidies for Indian people? No, Right?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Im saying the costs and options are differnt now than in the 1900s
- OptionOfT 2y ago
  So a company A pollutes a river, we all learn about the downsides of dumping chemical X into the water and regulate it to 1/100s of what was done. Now company B comes along, and they are allowed to pollute the river way above what is now accepted as OK, but because company A did so, it's allowed?
  - __rito__ 2y ago
    Companies are different from people. Very poor analogy. A better one would be a cities or provinces. And, yes, I believe every city should be given the chance to develop at the risk of short term harm to the environment. People from City B don't deserve to remain poor just because City A had a head-start and polluted the river first. Ideal scenario would be City/State A getting heavily taxed to subsidize City/State B's investment in renewables, people's education and healthcare, rehabilitation of people to other sectors, etc. Would you agree to taxing US and UK each 500-700 billion dollars each year and the money flow to India so that India closes all coal plants and citizens get 90% subsidy in electric cars, or to develop environment friendly steel processing? You wouldn’t agree to it. Why would US/UK taxpayer pay for India's infra and people? Right? So, stop virtue and moral signalling from the high tower you are on. Let India and China develop themselves. It's also very poor looking when it comes from UK. They got rich by exploiting India. And now they just can't say- "remain undeveloped because environment".

dmitrygr 2y ago

Who is growing and who is shrinking? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think the 2nd figure here in terms of per capita is more informative. https://qery.no/new-2023-global-emissions-data/ https://qery.no/new-2023-global-emissions-data/

Muromec 2y ago

>United States and Europe, by far the world's largest polluters since the industrial revolution Not just that. US and Europe got into the position of prosperity and hegemony we are enjoying right now thanks to industrial revolution which emitted all that CO2 in the first place.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Climate change didn't start today, so it makes no sense to blame whoever happens to be today's top polluter as the culprits Blame isn't helpful, period. Industrialised nations industrialised by polluting. But CO2 in the air is orders of magnitude more difficult to recover than carbon unburnt. Most CO2 was emitted by the industrialised world. Most CO2 we can prevent from being emitted will come from India and China. There is no good guy bad guy here, just places with a higher or lower return on action.