4 ms·
China. Seems like a deliberate effort not to mention it in the title and abstract, despite the text clearly defining "East Asia" as "mainly China". Also major
by afh1 1y ago
China.
Seems like a deliberate effort not to mention it in the title and abstract, despite the text clearly defining "East Asia" as "mainly China".
Also major contributor to plastic pollution in the ocean (from rivers) and #1 in CO2 emissions. All the while western economies hurt themselves and consumers in vain efforts instead of being serious about the issue and confronting its major contributor.
- budududuroiu 1y agoWho is China producing FOR tho? Doesn’t seem like a fair assessment
- __rito__ 1y agoPer capita consumption is a much better metric for deciding who is more responsible for the pollution, which will point the finger right back to... the West [0]. India: 1.2 tonnes CO2/person/year. China: 7.2 tonnes CO2/person/year. Russia: 10.1 tonnes CO2/person/year. Canada, Australia: 12.9 tonnes CO2/person/year. USA: 16.5 tonnes CO2/person/year. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
- aesh2Xa1 1y agoI disagree entirely. The total emissions are absolutely important, and our planet doesn't care about whether one ton of emissions served 1 or 1,000 people. A complete picture of blame absolutely should include per-capita, ultimate use (who buys the end product of China's emissions), and historical contributions. However, to ignore China's absolute , ongoing contribution as the world's largest emitter (by far: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error. 2023 totals: China: 11.90 billion tons, trending up USA: 4.91 billion tons, trending down
- tzs 1y agoThe planet doesn't care about arbitrary lines humans draw on their maps. It just cares about the worldwide total emissions. Unless you can make a good argument that some humans have a natural or divine right to a bigger share of whatever total worldwide emissions budget we decide we can accept any kind of per country instead of per capita base allocation [1] make no sense. This can be seen by considering what happens if countries split. A large country that is over their allocation in a per country system can simply split into two or more smaller countries, with the split designed so that each of the new countries has about an equal fraction of the former country's emissions. This results in no change in the total worldwide emissions, but now that set of people that were before over their total allocation and high on the list of people that need to make big changes now are all in countries under their allocation and in the "should do something about it eventually but no need for big changes now" group of countries. If they are clever about how they split the original large country into smaller countries they can immediately make free trade treaties and travel treaties between them that effectively make a common market with free travel like much of Europe now has so the split into multiple countries doesn't even change life much for the citizens of the new countries. Whatever countries have now moved to the top of the "need big changes now" list because of this now have incentive to split, and so on. [1] By base allocation I mean whatever share they would be allocated in a world with no trade. Actual allocations need to take into account people emitting more because they are making/growing things for other people which reduces the emissions directly attributable to those other people.
- aesh2Xa1 1y agoIf you can make the case to China be my guest. I don't think it's interested in splitting up the country to reduce it's lead role in such emissions.
- tzs 1y agoThe point of the country splitting hypothetical was to show that a country's total emission is not a useful measure of whether they are doing better or worse than any other given country on addressing emissions. A useful measure should not be affected by where we happen to draw political boundaries on our maps.
- pasc1878 1y agoPollution is not CO2 Your figures are for who produces CO2 and nothing to do with pollution
- drdeca 1y agoCO2 is the topic under discussion. (Also, this is not “nothing to do with pollution”.)
- pasc1878 1y agoNo what is under discussion is how the lessening of pollution in East Asia has helped to increase CO2 levels. So in the context of the article this thread is discussing CO2 and pollution are different.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1y agoIt's a scientific paper, they need to be precise with language. Saying "East Asia" in the title and then specifying in the paper that most of the impact comes from China is precise. Saying "China" in the title would be misleading, saying "mostly China" would be incomplete and imprecise.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoIf they put China in the title it'll be flagged
- Cordiali 1y agoThe article is about reducing pollution, so in this context, they're doing a good thing.
- sanp 1y agoThis is a case of China trying to reduce pollution. Reduce aerosol emissions. The impact of this is lower cooling (aerosol interaction results in atmospheric cooling)
- swed420 1y agoChina is currently the one setting a good example on the global stage: https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1lvoi0x/theres_a_race_to_power_the_future_china_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1lvoi0x/theres_a... Meanwhile, US leadership is on team "Drill baby, drill"
- billy99k 1y agoSlave labor and authoritarianism is a 'good example' on the global stage? I also have a hard time believing they are really curbing pollution. They are still building coal plants on a monthly basis.
- swed420 1y agoIf you guzzle US corpo media and nothing else, then your confusion is no surprise.
- Aunche 1y agoWhat exactly has the US done to hurt their economy? They have subsidized green energy, but China does that to a much greater extent.