4 ms·

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-have-contributed-the-most-to-historical-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-cou

by 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.

by tonfa 1y ago

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.