3 ms·

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-e

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".
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
These are the top five countries with population > 10 million by per capita emissions United Arab Emirates 25.8 t Saudi Arabia 18.2 t Australia +15.0 t United States 14.9 t Canada 14.2 t against Europe 6.9t World average 4.7t Lower-middle-income countries [1] of 1.8 t Low-income countries [1] 0.3 t Dividing by land is not reasonable at all. Because immediately you will get into a discussion of which land absorbs CO2 more (rainforest vs desert), how air flows across borders, how to divide up the oceans which absorb a lot of CO2, which is very hard to resolve. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups?...
Muromec 2y ago
>The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. It's a classic tragedy of commons problem.

__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".

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

These are the top five countries with population > 10 million by per capita emissions United Arab Emirates 25.8 t Saudi Arabia 18.2 t Australia +15.0 t United States 14.9 t Canada 14.2 t against Europe 6.9t World average 4.7t Lower-middle-income countries [1] of 1.8 t Low-income countries [1] 0.3 t Dividing by land is not reasonable at all. Because immediately you will get into a discussion of which land absorbs CO2 more (rainforest vs desert), how air flows across borders, how to divide up the oceans which absorb a lot of CO2, which is very hard to resolve. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups?...

Muromec 2y ago

>The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. It's a classic tragedy of commons problem.