5 ms·

I 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 c

I 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 ago
The 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    The 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.
    - aesh2Xa1 1y ago
      If you ignore that countries really do exist and really do produce those emissions in order to succeed in their economic objectives, sure, then it's not useful. Outside that thought experiment it actually is useful, and that's why we have data showing that China leads, by far, in producing emissions. By the way, they lead in methane and nitrous oxide as well -- it isn't just carbon dioxide. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
      - tzs 1y ago
        It is not useful because it ignores population. One property a useful measure of something undesirable (like CO2 emissions) should have is that if you identify the country that is doing the worst by that measure, and they were to change so that their economy works like that of the second worst country and their people live a lifestyle nearly identical to the people of the second country, that should improve the thing being measured. Total by country fails at that. If China were to change so that they are basically a clone of the US economy and lifestyle their emissions would go way up. Conversely, if the US were to change to be a China clone that would result in a big decrease in total emissions.
        1y ago
__rito__ 1y ago
I did not possibly make my arguments clear. China has higher emission, because China has higher number of factories. The factories produce stuff. Where do all that stuff go? And for whom are all that stuff produced? Not entirely China, or Africa, or India. A vast amount of that stuff flows to... the West. So, if the West chooses to reduce its consumption significantly, the CO2 emissions of China will go down. The consumers have to take the blame. It's as clear as that. And the West should fund climate-resilient infra for people and green tech for China and India and Vietnam. Because it is to West that stuff goes. But that's another issue. It is because there is demand in the West, China produce stuff. If every American buys only one pair of shoes and a couple of new tshirts every year, and not more, and buys a smartphone after using one for 4 years, not less, the CO2 emission of China will go down.
- aesh2Xa1 1y ago
  I understood your argument, and I did already address the point you want to continue with here. > 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- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error. "Ultimate use" discusses consumption by the West. This fact does not exonerate China, as China directly causes the emissions in order to satisfy its economic ambitions, and profits from its _factual_ role as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. If China did not offer these exports, perhaps someone else would. But right now, it's China. I also threw in "historical contributions" to throw you a bone. Nonetheless, right now, its China and China's emissions are, even still, increasing. If you want to pass the buck to the West that's fine, but the reality is that China is producing more emissions than anybody else is, and it does it for the benefit of China at the expense of the planet.
  - __rito__ 1y ago
    > China is producing Is it? Chinese companies are doing it for the profit, no doubt. But the West's unsustainable consumption standards should share the blame. China only do this because the West buy. And Western companies shift their production to China for cheaper labour, mainly. Many American companies are actually doing the polluting. Not only Chinese companies produce in China. So, in a world with blurry boundaries, please take into account the production of Western companies, in Chinese physical borders, and stuff that China export to the West. It is China now, it will be India, too, some years into the future. Where you write from the third iPhone (produced in India) that you bought in the last two years, that India and China are to blame for the pollution, where your second big heavy car sits in the garage, the rare earth minerals for which were mined in China, for an American company, and a roomba cleans your floor (also produced in China), that reads "carbon-neutral". You just hear the bell, and someone delivers your pizza, who is a climate refugee from a small pacific island. You are not to blame. China and India are polluting!

tzs 1y ago

The 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 ago
If 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 ago
  The 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.
  - aesh2Xa1 1y ago
    If you ignore that countries really do exist and really do produce those emissions in order to succeed in their economic objectives, sure, then it's not useful. Outside that thought experiment it actually is useful, and that's why we have data showing that China leads, by far, in producing emissions. By the way, they lead in methane and nitrous oxide as well -- it isn't just carbon dioxide. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
    - tzs 1y ago
      It is not useful because it ignores population. One property a useful measure of something undesirable (like CO2 emissions) should have is that if you identify the country that is doing the worst by that measure, and they were to change so that their economy works like that of the second worst country and their people live a lifestyle nearly identical to the people of the second country, that should improve the thing being measured. Total by country fails at that. If China were to change so that they are basically a clone of the US economy and lifestyle their emissions would go way up. Conversely, if the US were to change to be a China clone that would result in a big decrease in total emissions.
      - 1y ago

__rito__ 1y ago

I did not possibly make my arguments clear. China has higher emission, because China has higher number of factories. The factories produce stuff. Where do all that stuff go? And for whom are all that stuff produced? Not entirely China, or Africa, or India. A vast amount of that stuff flows to... the West. So, if the West chooses to reduce its consumption significantly, the CO2 emissions of China will go down. The consumers have to take the blame. It's as clear as that. And the West should fund climate-resilient infra for people and green tech for China and India and Vietnam. Because it is to West that stuff goes. But that's another issue. It is because there is demand in the West, China produce stuff. If every American buys only one pair of shoes and a couple of new tshirts every year, and not more, and buys a smartphone after using one for 4 years, not less, the CO2 emission of China will go down.

aesh2Xa1 1y ago
I understood your argument, and I did already address the point you want to continue with here. > 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- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error. "Ultimate use" discusses consumption by the West. This fact does not exonerate China, as China directly causes the emissions in order to satisfy its economic ambitions, and profits from its _factual_ role as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. If China did not offer these exports, perhaps someone else would. But right now, it's China. I also threw in "historical contributions" to throw you a bone. Nonetheless, right now, its China and China's emissions are, even still, increasing. If you want to pass the buck to the West that's fine, but the reality is that China is producing more emissions than anybody else is, and it does it for the benefit of China at the expense of the planet.
- __rito__ 1y ago
  > China is producing Is it? Chinese companies are doing it for the profit, no doubt. But the West's unsustainable consumption standards should share the blame. China only do this because the West buy. And Western companies shift their production to China for cheaper labour, mainly. Many American companies are actually doing the polluting. Not only Chinese companies produce in China. So, in a world with blurry boundaries, please take into account the production of Western companies, in Chinese physical borders, and stuff that China export to the West. It is China now, it will be India, too, some years into the future. Where you write from the third iPhone (produced in India) that you bought in the last two years, that India and China are to blame for the pollution, where your second big heavy car sits in the garage, the rare earth minerals for which were mined in China, for an American company, and a roomba cleans your floor (also produced in China), that reads "carbon-neutral". You just hear the bell, and someone delivers your pizza, who is a climate refugee from a small pacific island. You are not to blame. China and India are polluting!