4 ms·

CO2 emissions by country: China vs US. Number only.

by ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

DangitBobby 1y ago
No idea, if you read my comment you'd understand that's not what I think matters.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  That is not a serious position, that is a political position.
  - DangitBobby 1y ago
    Ok lol
tonfa 1y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-have-contributed-the-most-to-historical-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-hav... I would be surprised if China ends up dumping more CO2 than the US (and then if we look at per capita, even more so).
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no
  - tonfa 1y ago
    What matters is how much CO2 was dumped in the atmosphere (and to stop doing it, China is transitioning, the US administration tells everyone it's a scam...)
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      It doesn't matter because it's done. There is nothing we can do about it, only about the present. China is presently the worst CO2 emitter.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? > Does the climate care about per capita? It does care about CO2 since 1750 though because that CO2 never went away. It's at least as important as, if not more than "Who is currently today doing the thing?"
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      No. The incremental CO2 is what is harming us. We're already experiencing the effects of 1750 to present. What happens from now on will incrementally deteriorate the climate.
  - maxglute 1y ago
    Total historic emissions is the ONLY serious metric. Since it accounts for all capital buildouts, it takes centuries of emission heavy construction to get developed countries where they are. Countries are going to emit more when they're in steel and concrete phase of nation building. Does climate care about emissions? Does climate care about changing? No. Climate doesn't care it cycles back to ice age. Humans (hypothetically) care about climate change. It's a fundmentally a geo-political problem, which means the solution is geopolitically agreed on metric. Currently it rhetorically per capita, but arguably it should be historic per capita, because per capita itself is geopolitic concession metric that shifts responsibility away from historic carbon debt of developed nations towards developing nations.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Why does China have the right to "develop" when they are already one of the most advanced countries on the planet? Do they get to advance until they're in first place? And then what? It stops there or does India get a shot at being first place? Then Nigeria? Meanwhile what does the climate look like if every single country executes the China 1945-2025 playbook?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - maxglute 1y ago
        Because it's not uniformly developed, there's still 100s of millions who are underdeveloped. If we're sensible we'll cap a limit on what first place should emit per capita and that will be the benchmark everyone targets / settles at. Right now that's high income per capita emissions. Realistically, it doesn't stop until some agreed/enforced per capital emission ceiling and if that agreed ceiling takes us to 4/5/6 degrees then that's where we're going to settle. Ultimately the fair requirement is suggest countries have X historic per captia emissions adjustment to unfuck themselves / prepare for climate change. If wealthy countries are generous they can subsidize the transition, but we know that's unlikely so really it's about how (or whether) to mitigate the free for all. In an even fairer world, huge renewable exporters would get credit / per capita adjustments for exporting net renewable and fossil exporers would get opposite. Oh and countries with high TFR or advanced economies with high immigration that multiplies an immigrant's emission (i.e. poor -> rich flow) would get penalized. But that's even less likely to happen because it's obvious whose interest these sensible proposals undermine, because climate change isn't a scientific of enviromental problem, it's a geopolitcal one.
triceratops 1y ago
> China vs US. Number only. China: down 2.7% this year US: up 4.2%. That's total, not per-capita. Try some other excuses to do nothing about climate change. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  -2.7% to what total amount? +4.2% to what total amount? This obscures the numbers. The climate doesn't care about improvement, only about total tons of CO2.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    It's obvious you don't believe a word of whatever you're saying all over this comment thread. Especially > The climate doesn't care about improvement, only about total tons of CO2 Given how easily you pooh-poohed cumulative historical emissions in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45509432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45509432. The climate also cares about all carbon, past and present. Not just the carbon emitted by China specifically today on October 7, 2025, as you keep repeating. (Only current emissions matter, right? So even China's emissions yesterday and the day before are meaningless). All of your arguments are extremely in bad faith. I don't understand why you're doing this though. What do you gain? Is it just about "China bad"? Or about denying the developed world's responsibility for climate change? Or is it for the pleasure of trolling? Please help me understand what's going through your mind.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      This thread is highlighting that climate change initiatives are about harming the West in favor of everyone else. China is by far the biggest carbon emitter. People try to obscure that through "per capita" and "historical cumulative" figures and "percentage improvement". The way people contort themselves to protect China, the mega-emitter is laughable. They improved 2.7%!! So they went from 31% to 30.92% of total manmade CO2? You're not serious about the climate, you just want to punish the US/West.

CO2 emissions by country: China vs US. Number only.

DangitBobby 1y ago

No idea, if you read my comment you'd understand that's not what I think matters.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
That is not a serious position, that is a political position.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  Ok lol

tonfa 1y ago

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-have-contributed-the-most-to-historical-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-hav... I would be surprised if China ends up dumping more CO2 than the US (and then if we look at per capita, even more so).

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no
- tonfa 1y ago
  What matters is how much CO2 was dumped in the atmosphere (and to stop doing it, China is transitioning, the US administration tells everyone it's a scam...)
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    It doesn't matter because it's done. There is nothing we can do about it, only about the present. China is presently the worst CO2 emitter.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- triceratops 1y ago
  > CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? > Does the climate care about per capita? It does care about CO2 since 1750 though because that CO2 never went away. It's at least as important as, if not more than "Who is currently today doing the thing?"
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    No. The incremental CO2 is what is harming us. We're already experiencing the effects of 1750 to present. What happens from now on will incrementally deteriorate the climate.
- maxglute 1y ago
  Total historic emissions is the ONLY serious metric. Since it accounts for all capital buildouts, it takes centuries of emission heavy construction to get developed countries where they are. Countries are going to emit more when they're in steel and concrete phase of nation building. Does climate care about emissions? Does climate care about changing? No. Climate doesn't care it cycles back to ice age. Humans (hypothetically) care about climate change. It's a fundmentally a geo-political problem, which means the solution is geopolitically agreed on metric. Currently it rhetorically per capita, but arguably it should be historic per capita, because per capita itself is geopolitic concession metric that shifts responsibility away from historic carbon debt of developed nations towards developing nations.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Why does China have the right to "develop" when they are already one of the most advanced countries on the planet? Do they get to advance until they're in first place? And then what? It stops there or does India get a shot at being first place? Then Nigeria? Meanwhile what does the climate look like if every single country executes the China 1945-2025 playbook?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxglute 1y ago
      Because it's not uniformly developed, there's still 100s of millions who are underdeveloped. If we're sensible we'll cap a limit on what first place should emit per capita and that will be the benchmark everyone targets / settles at. Right now that's high income per capita emissions. Realistically, it doesn't stop until some agreed/enforced per capital emission ceiling and if that agreed ceiling takes us to 4/5/6 degrees then that's where we're going to settle. Ultimately the fair requirement is suggest countries have X historic per captia emissions adjustment to unfuck themselves / prepare for climate change. If wealthy countries are generous they can subsidize the transition, but we know that's unlikely so really it's about how (or whether) to mitigate the free for all. In an even fairer world, huge renewable exporters would get credit / per capita adjustments for exporting net renewable and fossil exporers would get opposite. Oh and countries with high TFR or advanced economies with high immigration that multiplies an immigrant's emission (i.e. poor -> rich flow) would get penalized. But that's even less likely to happen because it's obvious whose interest these sensible proposals undermine, because climate change isn't a scientific of enviromental problem, it's a geopolitcal one.

triceratops 1y ago

> China vs US. Number only. China: down 2.7% this year US: up 4.2%. That's total, not per-capita. Try some other excuses to do nothing about climate change. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
-2.7% to what total amount? +4.2% to what total amount? This obscures the numbers. The climate doesn't care about improvement, only about total tons of CO2.
- triceratops 1y ago
  It's obvious you don't believe a word of whatever you're saying all over this comment thread. Especially > The climate doesn't care about improvement, only about total tons of CO2 Given how easily you pooh-poohed cumulative historical emissions in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45509432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45509432. The climate also cares about all carbon, past and present. Not just the carbon emitted by China specifically today on October 7, 2025, as you keep repeating. (Only current emissions matter, right? So even China's emissions yesterday and the day before are meaningless). All of your arguments are extremely in bad faith. I don't understand why you're doing this though. What do you gain? Is it just about "China bad"? Or about denying the developed world's responsibility for climate change? Or is it for the pleasure of trolling? Please help me understand what's going through your mind.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    This thread is highlighting that climate change initiatives are about harming the West in favor of everyone else. China is by far the biggest carbon emitter. People try to obscure that through "per capita" and "historical cumulative" figures and "percentage improvement". The way people contort themselves to protect China, the mega-emitter is laughable. They improved 2.7%!! So they went from 31% to 30.92% of total manmade CO2? You're not serious about the climate, you just want to punish the US/West.