35 ms·

The last IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C, humans can only emit at most 1150 GtCO2 (at 67% likelihood) [1]. There are 8.2 billion humans, so a

The last IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C, humans can only emit at most 1150 GtCO2 (at 67% likelihood) [1]. There are 8.2 billion humans, so about 140tCO2/person left on average. If we assume that we get to net zero by 2050, that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from today to 2050 (hitting 0tCO2/person/year in 2050). This is what emissions look like currently [2] Top 5 countries > 10m population Saudi Arabia 22.1t United Arab Emirates 21.6t Australia 14.5t United States 14.3t Canada 14.0t Some others China 8.4t Europe 6.7t World average 4.7t Lower-middle-income countries of 1.6t Low-income countries 0.3t Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything. [1] Page 82 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kingkongjaffa 2y ago
> United Arab Emirates 25.8 t > Saudi Arabia 18.2 t > Australia 15.0 t These are all pretty low population though so net CO2 from these countries is not the largest. In terms of per capita, what drives this? These places are hot, is it the 24/7 Air conditioning running?
- quonn 2y ago
  That is balanced by not having to heat. The more likely explanation for the first two is that plenty of fossil fuels are available so they are used inefficiently.
- inquirerGeneral 2y ago
  [dead]
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  I generated this list a few months ago. I picked a threshold population (I think 10 million) and listed the top 5 and then some other groups. I think I would also guess that resource rich countries spend a lot on cars and AC. FYI, I edited list with latest numbers after your comment.
- mrkeen 2y ago
  It could make more sense to bucket these three together if you're looking for what they have in common. Australia 14.5t United States 14.3t Canada 14.0t My guesses are: houses rather than apartments, driving everywhere, percentage of SUVS compared to sedans, meat consumption, general consumerism?
  - vivekd 2y ago
    I'm Canadian most of our emissions this past year was because of forrest fires.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    In the US, we also have large numbers of homes that have not been brought up to modern efficiency standards and cheap/outdated, grossly inefficient heating/cooling contributing. That number could probably be brought down quite significantly without negatively impacting quality of life by “simply” (I’m aware it’s a huge undertaking) properly insulating homes and in urban/suburban areas banning heating/cooling solutions below a certain efficiency threshold.
    - dangravell 2y ago
      The tragedy of of this is that these are improvements that would actually improve life in these houses - making them healthier, more comfortable. Trouble is, retrofit is expensive.
- ducttapecrown 2y ago
  Probably mining and refining natural gas and oil?
  - whazor 2y ago
    In that case there is so much to win by improving the mining/refining processes.
- alwayslikethis 2y ago
  AC is pretty efficient and the temperature differential it needs to overcome is smaller than winter heating in most places. For these places specifically it seems to obviously be the production of oil for the first two and coal for the third. The availability of fossil fuels tends to make them cheaper and consequently a lot more is used.
Aurornis 2y ago
> that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from here on out. This is what emissions look like currently Using a world average target number and then presenting a list that leads with world outliers is misleading. This is the kind of statistical sleight of hand that climate skeptics seize upon to dismiss arguments. The world average is currently under the target number: > World average 4.7t I think you meant to imply that the CO2 emissions of poor countries were going to catch up to other countries, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The global rollout of solar power, battery storage, and cheap EVs is exceeding expectations, for example. I don’t want to downplay the severity of the situation, but I don’t think this type of fatalistic doomerism is helping. In my experience with people from different walks of life, it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely. In my experience, it’s the prospect of having to give up expected or dreamed about large homes, large vehicles, non seasonal/local fruits and vegetables, cheap electronics, and vacations involving flights.
  - exe34 2y ago
    try suggesting that people should eat more vegetables and less meat - they see red and shout down any chance of reasoning.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      75% of the US is overweight or obese. You’re trying to make a partisan issue out of a not-partisan issue. Please stop.
      - exe34 2y ago
        I would suggest that you are the one who just made it partisan. I'm in the UK personally, but I can immediately tell which side of the political spectrum you are, given the reflexive defence.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Are those figures per capita for consumers or producers? Is Saudi Arabia scoring high because of the oil industry? > Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything. Low income countries also don’t have good tracking or data. I’ve seen lots of practices in developing countries that are really damaging environmentally (GHGs and other things) that probably don’t get reported or tracked anywhere, because they’re so local (things like illegal refineries, manufacturing operations with no waste disposal, stubble burning, etc). But they exist. In part those damaging practices are here because of globalism (economic pressure) and changing lifestyles, so it’s not their fault. But my point is we probably just need a global reduction in luxury and quality of life ultimately.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  These are consumption based numbers. So any oil that Saudi Arabia exports that is then burned elsewhere is counted in the other country's number. Yes, there are uncertainties in these numbers, and it is quite unfortunate that OWID does not state them. However, I don't think the uncertainties are that high. Emissions from fossil fuel burning or agriculture are most of global emissions (>90%) and are quite easy to track in bulk.
- speakfreely 2y ago
  > But my point is we probably just need a global reduction in luxury and quality of life ultimately. Of all proposed political policies, "degrowth" is the standout for being the most ludicrous ask of developing countries. A lot of people don't like hearing it, but human quality of life on a global scale is measured in energy consumption. Trying to convince anyone to accept a lower quality of life, especially people who were subsistence farmers a generation ago, is a losing proposition.
animex 2y ago
I wonder if there should be some scaling for extreme hot/cold countries. Most of our output here in Canada must be related to heating during our 6 months of cold climate.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Electricity and heat is indeed the largest sector by emissions in Canada (about a quarter) [1]. Though depends on where you are. In BC all electricity is hydropower, and if you have electric heating, your emissions are close to zero. Transport is also about a quarter. So Canada can indeed cut emissions in half with present day tech by fixing these two sectors. Still a long way to go. Also note that Estonia is at 7.3t, Finland 5.6t, Sweden 3.5t (Sweden was 8.6t in 1980). So climate is not really an excuse. It is just politics. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?tab=chart&country=~CAN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...
- ant6n 2y ago
  There’s lots of inefficiencies all around in Canada. Poor insulation, too much suburbanization, not enough heat pumps. Transportation is also very inefficient (not enough public transit, too much suburbanization, not enough rail). Tar sands are an issue, as is other oil.
iLoveOncall 2y ago
> Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer Well according to your own data which shows the average comfortably below the target number, nothing will happen and nobody will suffer?
zahlman 2y ago
>This is what emissions look like currently [2] So, the world average is currently below the ration, and thus as long as we're actually headed for that net zero we're going to be in reasonably good shape? >Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything. Oh, this is actually about calling people bad because of what country they live in, never mind where the innovation is going to come from that would actually make net zero possible (assuming it actually is). Carry on, then, I guess. Russia is not far behind that top 5 list, at 12.5t/person/year, by the way.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever. If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages. They are people just like you and me who are just a little bit behind in the development curve and they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle. Countries who are currently high emitters but also applying active measures to curb it must be praised instead of pointing fingers. The political will to improve things is fragile and people can easily vote for populists that will easily exploit resistance towards guilt shaming.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    >If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.... they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle. The hope is that whatever the developed world has settled on by 2050 to achieve net zero, lower-income countries will be able to switch to directly instead of going through a phase of fossil fuel consumption. China was too early; India for example might see a much healthier trajectory. The association of greenhouse gasses with the lifestyle of the richest countries is hoped to be only incidental.
    - ithkuil 2y ago
      It's possible, just like many countries have jumped straight to mobile phone and avoided wired infrastructure. In any case, that's the result of continuous improvement and progress and my point was that we cannot get there by just shaming countries that are making that incremental progress right now.
isodev 2y ago
The next target should not be 2.0C but rather 1.6. Understand that everything we’re adding is going to cost us going forward. 2.0 is when the cost become inconceivably high.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kingkongjaffa 2y ago

> United Arab Emirates 25.8 t > Saudi Arabia 18.2 t > Australia 15.0 t These are all pretty low population though so net CO2 from these countries is not the largest. In terms of per capita, what drives this? These places are hot, is it the 24/7 Air conditioning running?

quonn 2y ago
That is balanced by not having to heat. The more likely explanation for the first two is that plenty of fossil fuels are available so they are used inefficiently.
inquirerGeneral 2y ago
[dead]
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
I generated this list a few months ago. I picked a threshold population (I think 10 million) and listed the top 5 and then some other groups. I think I would also guess that resource rich countries spend a lot on cars and AC. FYI, I edited list with latest numbers after your comment.
mrkeen 2y ago
It could make more sense to bucket these three together if you're looking for what they have in common. Australia 14.5t United States 14.3t Canada 14.0t My guesses are: houses rather than apartments, driving everywhere, percentage of SUVS compared to sedans, meat consumption, general consumerism?
- vivekd 2y ago
  I'm Canadian most of our emissions this past year was because of forrest fires.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  In the US, we also have large numbers of homes that have not been brought up to modern efficiency standards and cheap/outdated, grossly inefficient heating/cooling contributing. That number could probably be brought down quite significantly without negatively impacting quality of life by “simply” (I’m aware it’s a huge undertaking) properly insulating homes and in urban/suburban areas banning heating/cooling solutions below a certain efficiency threshold.
  - dangravell 2y ago
    The tragedy of of this is that these are improvements that would actually improve life in these houses - making them healthier, more comfortable. Trouble is, retrofit is expensive.
ducttapecrown 2y ago
Probably mining and refining natural gas and oil?
- whazor 2y ago
  In that case there is so much to win by improving the mining/refining processes.
alwayslikethis 2y ago
AC is pretty efficient and the temperature differential it needs to overcome is smaller than winter heating in most places. For these places specifically it seems to obviously be the production of oil for the first two and coal for the third. The availability of fossil fuels tends to make them cheaper and consequently a lot more is used.

Aurornis 2y ago

> that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from here on out. This is what emissions look like currently Using a world average target number and then presenting a list that leads with world outliers is misleading. This is the kind of statistical sleight of hand that climate skeptics seize upon to dismiss arguments. The world average is currently under the target number: > World average 4.7t I think you meant to imply that the CO2 emissions of poor countries were going to catch up to other countries, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The global rollout of solar power, battery storage, and cheap EVs is exceeding expectations, for example. I don’t want to downplay the severity of the situation, but I don’t think this type of fatalistic doomerism is helping. In my experience with people from different walks of life, it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
>it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely. In my experience, it’s the prospect of having to give up expected or dreamed about large homes, large vehicles, non seasonal/local fruits and vegetables, cheap electronics, and vacations involving flights.
- exe34 2y ago
  try suggesting that people should eat more vegetables and less meat - they see red and shout down any chance of reasoning.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    75% of the US is overweight or obese. You’re trying to make a partisan issue out of a not-partisan issue. Please stop.
    - exe34 2y ago
      I would suggest that you are the one who just made it partisan. I'm in the UK personally, but I can immediately tell which side of the political spectrum you are, given the reflexive defence.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Are those figures per capita for consumers or producers? Is Saudi Arabia scoring high because of the oil industry? > Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything. Low income countries also don’t have good tracking or data. I’ve seen lots of practices in developing countries that are really damaging environmentally (GHGs and other things) that probably don’t get reported or tracked anywhere, because they’re so local (things like illegal refineries, manufacturing operations with no waste disposal, stubble burning, etc). But they exist. In part those damaging practices are here because of globalism (economic pressure) and changing lifestyles, so it’s not their fault. But my point is we probably just need a global reduction in luxury and quality of life ultimately.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago
These are consumption based numbers. So any oil that Saudi Arabia exports that is then burned elsewhere is counted in the other country's number. Yes, there are uncertainties in these numbers, and it is quite unfortunate that OWID does not state them. However, I don't think the uncertainties are that high. Emissions from fossil fuel burning or agriculture are most of global emissions (>90%) and are quite easy to track in bulk.
speakfreely 2y ago
> But my point is we probably just need a global reduction in luxury and quality of life ultimately. Of all proposed political policies, "degrowth" is the standout for being the most ludicrous ask of developing countries. A lot of people don't like hearing it, but human quality of life on a global scale is measured in energy consumption. Trying to convince anyone to accept a lower quality of life, especially people who were subsistence farmers a generation ago, is a losing proposition.

animex 2y ago

I wonder if there should be some scaling for extreme hot/cold countries. Most of our output here in Canada must be related to heating during our 6 months of cold climate.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Electricity and heat is indeed the largest sector by emissions in Canada (about a quarter) [1]. Though depends on where you are. In BC all electricity is hydropower, and if you have electric heating, your emissions are close to zero. Transport is also about a quarter. So Canada can indeed cut emissions in half with present day tech by fixing these two sectors. Still a long way to go. Also note that Estonia is at 7.3t, Finland 5.6t, Sweden 3.5t (Sweden was 8.6t in 1980). So climate is not really an excuse. It is just politics. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?tab=chart&country=~CAN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...
ant6n 2y ago
There’s lots of inefficiencies all around in Canada. Poor insulation, too much suburbanization, not enough heat pumps. Transportation is also very inefficient (not enough public transit, too much suburbanization, not enough rail). Tar sands are an issue, as is other oil.

iLoveOncall 2y ago

> Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer Well according to your own data which shows the average comfortably below the target number, nothing will happen and nobody will suffer?

zahlman 2y ago

>This is what emissions look like currently [2] So, the world average is currently below the ration, and thus as long as we're actually headed for that net zero we're going to be in reasonably good shape? >Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything. Oh, this is actually about calling people bad because of what country they live in, never mind where the innovation is going to come from that would actually make net zero possible (assuming it actually is). Carry on, then, I guess. Russia is not far behind that top 5 list, at 12.5t/person/year, by the way.

ithkuil 2y ago
This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever. If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages. They are people just like you and me who are just a little bit behind in the development curve and they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle. Countries who are currently high emitters but also applying active measures to curb it must be praised instead of pointing fingers. The political will to improve things is fragile and people can easily vote for populists that will easily exploit resistance towards guilt shaming.
- zahlman 2y ago
  >If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.... they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle. The hope is that whatever the developed world has settled on by 2050 to achieve net zero, lower-income countries will be able to switch to directly instead of going through a phase of fossil fuel consumption. China was too early; India for example might see a much healthier trajectory. The association of greenhouse gasses with the lifestyle of the richest countries is hoped to be only incidental.
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    It's possible, just like many countries have jumped straight to mobile phone and avoided wired infrastructure. In any case, that's the result of continuous improvement and progress and my point was that we cannot get there by just shaming countries that are making that incremental progress right now.

isodev 2y ago

The next target should not be 2.0C but rather 1.6. Understand that everything we’re adding is going to cost us going forward. 2.0 is when the cost become inconceivably high.