3 ms·

Who do you mean "we"? Look at the evolution of CO2 emisions in the past 40 years by region. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?ti

Who do you mean "we"? Look at the evolution of CO2 emisions in the past 40 years by region. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?time=1980..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

KronisLV 5mo ago
Oh hell yeah, EU is doing something right! I fear to think how the US stats have changed. And China is… alarming.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- DharmaPolice 5mo ago
  It's relatively "easy" to cut pollution if you just outsource most of your manufacturing.
c0nducktr 5mo ago
Some people always try to push the blame onto someone else...
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
postflopclarity 5mo ago
now look at it measured from consumption per capita ...
dtech 5mo ago
In good faith I cannot see an argument here, it's either Region X was first and reduced their emissions 10-20% so it's fine and it's region Y that's the problem, or Region X is fine because they have less people, region Y should reduce even though they already have a fraction of per-capita emissions Both seem like pretty shitty arguments
Epa095 5mo ago
I find that the per capita graph is more informative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?time=1980..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
- hokumguru 5mo ago
  Why does per capita matter when it’s the total emissions that we actually care about? Wonderful, the United States uses more per capita than anyone else. That doesn’t mean anything in terms of total warming. Even if we cut to zero we still continue.
  - u_fucking_dork 5mo ago
    China should clearly just stop manufacturing the US’s entire way of life right now to bring those numbers down.
  - myrmidon 5mo ago
    Because emissions are caused by people heating their homes, fueling cars/planes or building stuff for consumption. With twice as many people (acting similarly) you have twice the emissions, it's as simple as that. To reduce emissions, you need everyone doing their part. And it is also obviously easier and more effective to tackle high-emitters first (because incentivizing a single US family to have their second car be a bit smaller and electric is obviously less burdensome than banning 3 Indian families from heating their homes in winter...)
  - surgical_fire 5mo ago
    Because per capita means that each individual consumes a lot more than the average in the US. Also, a bit portion of China's excessive growth in emissions is a byproduct of manufacturing shit for US consumers.
- irishcoffee 5mo ago
  Per capita doesn't mean nearly as much as total. If the countries above the US were instead on par or below the US as it relates to totals, we wouldn't have the same issue we have now.
simgt 5mo ago
Asia is producing all of our shit. Also: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions
- irishcoffee 5mo ago
  And most all of it is actual shit. Literal garbage stacking up in landfills.
  - surgical_fire 5mo ago
    Then the US should stop buying it. Things are manufactured because there are people buying.
    - irishcoffee 5mo ago
      So the problem is people buying shit? Not that manufacturing shit is causing the massive amount of carbon emissions? I vote it's the manufacturing. What you just said was "China et. al. are not culpable for horrible environmental practices, the people on the other side of the world are because they buy dogshit products" I can say with 100% certainty that china can manufacture dogshit products in an environmentally friendly way... which would drive the cost up and people would in fact not buy them. You're blaming the wrong entity here.
      - simgt 5mo ago
        No they can't, it's dirt cheap because the social and environmental consequences aren't accounted for. Both the US and EU could have kept producing with higher standards on their land, they chose not to for profit. China is also not forcing their products onto the west.
burkaman 5mo ago
I think "we" refers to "we human beings". That chart looks pretty similar to population growth by world region (with the notable exception of Africa). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-regions-with-projections?time=1980..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-regions-with-p...
ajuc 5mo ago
WE buy stuff that WE oursourced to Asia and then WE blame them for producing it. WE also set the standard of living that is unsustainable if everybody on Earth achieve it. What's your problem with the "we" word, again?
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

KronisLV 5mo ago

Oh hell yeah, EU is doing something right! I fear to think how the US stats have changed. And China is… alarming.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
DharmaPolice 5mo ago
It's relatively "easy" to cut pollution if you just outsource most of your manufacturing.

c0nducktr 5mo ago

Some people always try to push the blame onto someone else...

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

postflopclarity 5mo ago

now look at it measured from consumption per capita ...

dtech 5mo ago

In good faith I cannot see an argument here, it's either Region X was first and reduced their emissions 10-20% so it's fine and it's region Y that's the problem, or Region X is fine because they have less people, region Y should reduce even though they already have a fraction of per-capita emissions Both seem like pretty shitty arguments

Epa095 5mo ago

I find that the per capita graph is more informative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?time=1980..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

hokumguru 5mo ago
Why does per capita matter when it’s the total emissions that we actually care about? Wonderful, the United States uses more per capita than anyone else. That doesn’t mean anything in terms of total warming. Even if we cut to zero we still continue.
- u_fucking_dork 5mo ago
  China should clearly just stop manufacturing the US’s entire way of life right now to bring those numbers down.
- myrmidon 5mo ago
  Because emissions are caused by people heating their homes, fueling cars/planes or building stuff for consumption. With twice as many people (acting similarly) you have twice the emissions, it's as simple as that. To reduce emissions, you need everyone doing their part. And it is also obviously easier and more effective to tackle high-emitters first (because incentivizing a single US family to have their second car be a bit smaller and electric is obviously less burdensome than banning 3 Indian families from heating their homes in winter...)
- surgical_fire 5mo ago
  Because per capita means that each individual consumes a lot more than the average in the US. Also, a bit portion of China's excessive growth in emissions is a byproduct of manufacturing shit for US consumers.
irishcoffee 5mo ago
Per capita doesn't mean nearly as much as total. If the countries above the US were instead on par or below the US as it relates to totals, we wouldn't have the same issue we have now.

simgt 5mo ago

Asia is producing all of our shit. Also: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions

irishcoffee 5mo ago
And most all of it is actual shit. Literal garbage stacking up in landfills.
- surgical_fire 5mo ago
  Then the US should stop buying it. Things are manufactured because there are people buying.
  - irishcoffee 5mo ago
    So the problem is people buying shit? Not that manufacturing shit is causing the massive amount of carbon emissions? I vote it's the manufacturing. What you just said was "China et. al. are not culpable for horrible environmental practices, the people on the other side of the world are because they buy dogshit products" I can say with 100% certainty that china can manufacture dogshit products in an environmentally friendly way... which would drive the cost up and people would in fact not buy them. You're blaming the wrong entity here.
    - simgt 5mo ago
      No they can't, it's dirt cheap because the social and environmental consequences aren't accounted for. Both the US and EU could have kept producing with higher standards on their land, they chose not to for profit. China is also not forcing their products onto the west.

burkaman 5mo ago

I think "we" refers to "we human beings". That chart looks pretty similar to population growth by world region (with the notable exception of Africa). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-regions-with-projections?time=1980..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-regions-with-p...

ajuc 5mo ago

WE buy stuff that WE oursourced to Asia and then WE blame them for producing it. WE also set the standard of living that is unsustainable if everybody on Earth achieve it. What's your problem with the "we" word, again?

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]