|
On September 08 2019 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally. China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades. Show nested quote +As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two. en.wikipedia.org
And their carbon per capita increase is well over 100% in that time period. Which goes to my point that it is not a great measure unless your plan is to force your population to live in poverty.
|
On September 08 2019 23:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally. China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. Can you back this claim up, or would you like to have a word with the forced laborers?
I already did when IgnE doubted it, but sure.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2018 13:53 IgnE wrote:On May 12 2018 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2018 10:34 IgnE wrote:On May 12 2018 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2018 06:11 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2018 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2018 05:14 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is also the largest government employer in the country, with bases in several states that make up a reasonable portion of that state’s economy. And it funds several industries making the basic equipment for the armed services. We love the war machine because it employs so many voters. It's the largest employer in the entire world. The next closest is China’s People’s Liberation Army (with almost 1,000,000 less employees), followed closely by Walmart (~2.1m) as of 2015 anyway. www.marketwatch.comThe US military-industrial complex is the largest employment agency in the world and it reflects in our political actions. Just look at what happened to 'defense' contractors when NK peace talks took a good turn. This is why fighting the war machine is impossible. That is too many people are in that system. We need to learn from the war machine’s tactics and advocate on equal measure for other government agencies. Advocate for the SEC the same way the military advocates as the defenders of American values. The FDA needs to have such a massive budget that it advertises on the super bowl. Give Americans some context for how messed up it is that the NFL has a deal with the US army. Something tells me it would be a little tougher to generate the type of excitement military displays do with the SEC. Maybe if we were publicly executing bankers/brokers? We would run out of bankers real quick and then we have the French Revolution’s problem, executions are crowd pleasers. We can just go full post 2000 Brave New World where our government agencies all push for voter support. They help fund sporting events, bring back Firefly and arrest web designers who make sites with auto playing videos. I think you underestimate the culture of wealth addiction we've cultivated in this country. We could execute several a day and it would still be a growing industry. Though I think gladiator style games would be more attractive. "Want to have a fast paced career saving humanity by killing people? Forget the military, become a SEC Gladiator!" But seriously, neither party has any intentions of actually addressing this mess. They are so hopelessly addicted wealth and power they make Rob Ford look like Scruff McGruff China has more billionaires than we do. That's true, but that's partially due to the more equitable distribution of wealth, even among billionaires. Chinese per capita GDP in 2016 was roughly $7,000. How can you call a large cohort of billionaires in a country with a per capita GDP of $7000 "more equitable?" Well there's: Show nested quote +The Gini coefficient, a gauge ranging between zero and one that measures income equality, increased slightly to 0.465 last year, from 0.462 in 2015, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this week.
A reading of zero would mean everyone’s income was equal, while a reading of one would indicate that all the income was going to one person.
The United Nations considers a Gini coefficient higher than 0.4 a sign of severe income inequality.
The most recent figure for the US was 0.479. In term of cities, Hong Kong recorded an all-time high of 0.539 last year, behind only New York at 0.551. and Show nested quote +A study from Peking University last year found that the poorest 25 per cent of mainland households owned just 1 per cent of the country’s aggregate wealth, while the richest 1 per cent owned a third of the wealth. www.scmp.comBut in the US: Show nested quote +America's top 1% now control 38.6% of the nation's wealth, a historic high, according to a new Federal Reserve Report. www.cnbc.comand Show nested quote +That leaves just 1% of the total pie for the entire bottom half of the population. money.cnn.comThat's how I got there.
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=189#3771
On September 08 2019 23:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally. China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades. As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two. en.wikipedia.org And their carbon per capita increase is well over 100% in that time period. Which goes to my point that it is not a great measure unless your plan is to force your population to live in poverty.
Which was the most efficiently it's ever been done. Also your point that people have to live in poverty doesn't follow since they are still dramatically under US or Canada's per capita despite that massive growth and comparable income and wealth distribution (and hundreds of millions less people under the national poverty line than you suggested).
|
Norway25995 Posts
On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
GDP period is a completely useless metric for estimating how wealthy a country is, while GDP per capita is a useful metric for estimating the same thing. For example if you ask people, yourself included, which country is richer, Norway or Nigeria, you, and they, will answer Norway. Nigeria however has a higher GDP (however per capita, we're something like 30 times higher).
The notion that this somehow changes because it's 'pollution' and not 'money', because we live in countries with smaller populations that are richer (positive) and pollute (negative) more, we can choose that 'rich' is determined per capita while 'pollution' is determined by country, is ridiculous.
Saying we can't only look at carbon, that's true. The environment faces a lot of different challenges, that need different approaches. I imagine rich western countries are better at waste management than poor development countries. But we are worse in terms of consumption. period.. The countries that are the most polluting are the countries that pollute the most per capita, just like the richest countries are the countries that are richest per capita. We evaluate everything when looking at how a population lives by looking at per capita, there's no reason why co2 emissions should be different.
That there are other important elements to fighting climate change, yes. But looking at 2015 numbers, your average Indian is indeed about 1/10 as harmful, from an emissions perspective, as your average american, and thus should not bear any brunt in doing personal emissions cuttings (in fact he has to be permitted to increase his consumption to escape poverty), while the american guy, in my opinion, has a strong moral obligation to consume far less.
|
Norway25995 Posts
On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote:
I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
Population reduction is indeed not a viable political solution, because the population only decreases due to war, famine or disease. (I mean, those three go along just fine, so I prolly could have said and instead of or, but whatever.) Population increase however happens during the period where a country becomes more livable. That is, if you go back to 1800 europe, or travel to the most war-torn and underdeveloped regions of africa (tbh maybe you have to go back 30 years in time then too), you find that child birth is in a sort of equilibrium with child mortality; there's a high birth rate, high mortality. Then, as society manages to find ways to keep as many children from dying, there are usually 1-2 generations where you get high birth numbers, but without the high mortality numbers. Then the population 'booms'. And then after that, it stabilizes.
This process has happened in most of the world, there are some african countries that aren't fully done, but mostly, the reason why the population is expected to increase until we get to 10-11 billion is not that people are getting so many more children, it's that people are not dying at the rates they used to die. We're getting more old people than we used to have - but estimated amount of 0-18 year olds is basically the same in 2060 as it is today. And this is why population reduction is not a viable strategy for dealing with climate change in the next 50+ years (during which time we desperately need to address it), because a one child policy doesn't cut it - you'd have to actively murder people, or at the very least, not give them food.
|
On September 08 2019 23:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally. GDP period is a completely useless metric for estimating how wealthy a country is, while GDP per capita is a useful metric for estimating the same thing. For example if you ask people, yourself included, which country is richer, Norway or Nigeria, you, and they, will answer Norway. Nigeria however has a higher GDP (however per capita, we're something like 30 times higher). The notion that this somehow changes because it's 'pollution' and not 'money', because we live in countries with smaller populations that are richer (positive) and pollute (negative) more, we can choose that 'rich' is determined per capita while 'pollution' is determined by country, is ridiculous. Saying we can't only look at carbon, that's true. The environment faces a lot of different challenges, that need different approaches. I imagine rich western countries are better at waste management than poor development countries. But we are worse in terms of consumption. period.. The countries that are the most polluting are the countries that pollute the most per capita, just like the richest countries are the countries that are richest per capita. We evaluate everything when looking at how a population lives by looking at per capita, there's no reason why co2 emissions should be different. That there are other important elements to fighting climate change, yes. But looking at 2015 numbers, your average Indian is indeed about 1/10 as harmful, from an emissions perspective, as your average american, and thus should not bear any brunt in doing personal emissions cuttings (in fact he has to be permitted to increase his consumption to escape poverty), while the american guy, in my opinion, has a strong moral obligation to consume far less.
The reason it is different and should be different is scaleability. The reason you break things down per captia is to get a more even measure, and I have no problem with that. But if it turns out that the only reason country a is doing better than country b is poverty, then there is nothing to learn, they are not doing a better job, and they are likely trying to raise tgere peoples standard of living which would mean doing worse for the environment.
China is a perfect example of this, their carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
Carbon per capita is certainly a useful measure. But there are a bunch of other useful measures you need too look at get a full picture.
I also 100% agree that consumption and consumerism is the biggest problems. The scary news is countries like nigeris are just as bad at consuming as the west, but they dont have the infrastructure and tgeir governments are not building it. So as they gain wealth they get worse and worse, not to mention they are so populous that change is magnified.
If we purely only looked at per capita the only conclusion you could make is the key to tge climate crisis is making everyone very very poor.
|
The example China is setting is in their unmatched investment and commitment to improvement.
China recently stopped importing the worlds plastics and increasing environmental regulations, the US started burning ours (since we can't ship it to China)/shipping it to India and has been rolling back regulations.
Like your poverty stat, this is just something you made up
their [China's] carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
That's simply not true. Back it up or take it back please?
|
GH turn down the anger once in a while and you will be so much easier to take. If I had said money per person would have that made the point better?
This is not shocking to anyone who follows the environment it is why environmentalists don't look to see what China or Chad, or Afganistan is doing in regards to policy. Because it is not scale-able.
This is also why we are so excited about things like neutral circular economy and EPR. If you make convenience and throw away items more expensive than people won't buy them. Like if it was the same price for a metal reusable water bottle as for a plastic throw away one people would pick the metal, and I'm not talking about making the metal one cheaper but making the one you have to throw away much more expensive. Or if a cell phone cost 2500 for a new one, but you could have it repaired and buy parts to upgrade it, people would make those choices instead of right now where they choose to just throw out the old one and buy a new one.
If the only difference is that the people can't spend as much and there for are not polluting as much, but as they are able to they are doing the same or worse that really isn't that helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita
https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions
I mean if you want to be super callous the best thing for the environment would be everyone in the world living like the Amish or one of the various indigenous tribe's living the same way they have for 1000's of years. The consequences of such would be billions of people dying, because there wouldn't be enough food, and that is before you get into all the modern medicine. Not to mention there is no way to put the "genie" back in the bottle.
|
Norway25995 Posts
Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
|
On September 09 2019 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
Your first paragraph is a strawman at least to me. I don't think the US should tell China to pollute less, they are both shitty, and both are the shittiest is different ways. They both just need to be better.
Your second paragraph is more reasonable and I agree with parts. First the Western countries do need to help these developing countries with solutions, we should be far ahead because of our wealth, and they should invest in the technologies and practices that we have because if they don't they will become a much bigger problem than us because of that large population.
Personal responsibility is also very important I agree. But I think what you are doing is no different than what you are saying these countries shouldn't be doing. You are pointing the finger, what everybody should be doing is making the changes in their life that they can to make a difference. That actually makes a huge difference. And then they should be pressuring their government to push environmental policy. And they should have rules tied to the money they give and spend in the underdeveloped countries in what rules they should spend.
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse. The point of comparing is not rank order every country. It is to see what they are doing that we could do and vice versa. That is why I said percaptia is a good measure of countries of similar wealth. Because it is very possible for the US to look at Germany and see what they are doing in comparison and then improve (US could do so drastically). Whereas Denmark looking to Chad wouldn't provide any valuable insights.
|
On September 09 2019 00:59 JimmiC wrote:GH turn down the anger once in a while and you will be so much easier to take. If I had said money per person would have that made the point better? This is not shocking to anyone who follows the environment it is why environmentalists don't look to see what China or Chad, or Afganistan is doing in regards to policy. Because it is not scale-able. This is also why we are so excited about things like neutral circular economy and EPR. If you make convenience and throw away items more expensive than people won't buy them. Like if it was the same price for a metal reusable water bottle as for a plastic throw away one people would pick the metal, and I'm not talking about making the metal one cheaper but making the one you have to throw away much more expensive. Or if a cell phone cost 2500 for a new one, but you could have it repaired and buy parts to upgrade it, people would make those choices instead of right now where they choose to just throw out the old one and buy a new one. If the only difference is that the people can't spend as much and there for are not polluting as much, but as they are able to they are doing the same or worse that really isn't that helpful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capitahttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capitahttps://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emissionsI mean if you want to be super callous the best thing for the environment would be everyone in the world living like the Amish or one of the various indigenous tribe's living the same way they have for 1000's of years. The consequences of such would be billions of people dying, because there wouldn't be enough food, and that is before you get into all the modern medicine. Not to mention there is no way to put the "genie" back in the bottle.
Nothing there backs up your fallacious claim that:
their [China's] carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
You always assume I'm angry, I'm not.
|
Norway25995 Posts
Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
|
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
|
On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it).
Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
|
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this... + Show Spoiler +On August 25 2019 01:07 JimmiC wrote:
You are again way off the rails my friend. I have explained to you the policies that I believe will help.
The issue with China is they are currently the worst...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested, I think it's racist too.
|
On September 09 2019 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada. You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger. Already back to this... one post later... This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments. Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous. As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China I don't share, and many others have pointed this out. Your massive "investment" in green energy is solar energy. They are # 1, the other top 3 is the US and India, none are shining examples. And the US would have more soloar energy but they realized the giant fields like China has made have negative impacts on this environment. That is one of the reasons they have slowed them California. China also built the worlds biggest hydro plant. environmentalists do not see this as a good thing.
I get that you are very invested in showing everyone how bad the US is, and maybe saying they are worse than China you think makes a point or something. But China is terrible and so is the US. I'd say the US is slightly better because I don't only care about CO2 emission's you do so you say they are worse. That is fine, but if you want to actually make changes for the better it won't help you at all.
Also, I have never demanded China instantly be better, but I do wish instead of trying to build the worlds biggest bridge, or the worlds biggest whatever, they would invest in the worlds cleanest factories. The worlds best waste management system, the worlds best organics composting program, and so on and so forth. Slaging China for doing bad shit does not mean the US is not doing bad shit, and vice versa.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
|
Norway25995 Posts
On September 09 2019 01:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same. Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it). Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
The post you answered to with outrage was the following 'Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.' That is, when comparing countries. It seems like you stopped reading and started replying before you were done reading the one sentence my post consisted of. Yes, obviously, other statistics can be useful for other purposes. But when you are comparing countries with each other, you use per capita rather than the absolute number. If you are comparing the justice systems of different countries, you use incarceration per capita. If you are comparing wealth, you are looking at gdp per capita. If you are comparing employment numbers, you look at %, not the total number of unemployed or employed people - that is a useless number on its own. Clearly the same should also be true if you are looking at emissions.
If there are 200 indians for every norwegian and each norwegian pollutes 100 times more than each indian then overall india pollutes more, but clearly the norwegians deserve more blame than india does. That is an exaggerated number, but it's the very same scenario. China is not really part of that discussion, because their per capita numbers are similar to european ones.
|
On September 09 2019 01:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada. You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger. Already back to this... I think you guys are too focused on who is worse. one post later... you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments. Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous. As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too. You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
|
On September 09 2019 01:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same. Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it). Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no. The post you answered to with outrage was the following 'Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.' That is, when comparing countries. It seems like you stopped reading and started replying before you were done reading the one sentence my post consisted of. Yes, obviously, other statistics can be useful for other purposes. But when you are comparing countries with each other, you use per capita rather than the absolute number. If you are comparing the justice systems of different countries, you use incarceration per capita. If you are comparing wealth, you are looking at gdp per capita. If you are comparing employment numbers, you look at %, not the total number of unemployed or employed people - that is a useless number on its own. Clearly the same should also be true if you are looking at emissions. If there are 200 indians for every norwegian and each norwegian pollutes 100 times more than each indian then overall india pollutes more, but clearly the norwegians deserve more blame than india does. That is an exaggerated number, but it's the very same scenario. China is not really part of that discussion, because their per capita numbers are similar to european ones.
It depends what you are measuring. If you are comparing 2 countries total populations, it doesn't make sense to use per capita because that would be nonsensical. For limiting global emissions, it is total population times emissions per capita. Both reducing population and reducing emissions per capita are important, with emissions per capita likely being more important. Still over a billion people in India and over a billion in China is a problem. China actually took steps to address it with the one child policy.
|
On September 09 2019 01:35 JimmiC wrote:
And the US would have more soloar energy but they realized the giant fields like China has made have negative impacts on this environment. That is one of the reasons they have slowed them California. China also built the worlds biggest hydro plant. environmentalists do not see this as a good thing.
Care to share your sources for this? It feels like something's badly wrong with these statements.
|
On September 09 2019 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 01:35 JimmiC wrote:On September 09 2019 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada. You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger. Already back to this... I think you guys are too focused on who is worse. one post later... you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments. Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous. As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too. You have a very sunny veiw on China No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong. Show nested quote +And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information. Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded. Show nested quote +edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior. I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything... Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
