• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:30
CEST 16:30
KST 23:30
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL62Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?13FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event21Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? PiG Sty Festival #5: Playoffs Preview + Groups Recap
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament WardiTV Mondays FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL SC uni coach streams logging into betting site Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL Practice Partners (Official) ASL20 Preliminary Maps
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 617 users

China, US and the environment - Page 4

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13 Next All
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 14:12 GMT
#61
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23168 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 14:16:18
September 08 2019 14:12 GMT
#62
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.com

The 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.com

But 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.com

and

Show nested quote +
That leaves just 1% of the total pie for the entire bottom half of the population.


money.cnn.com

That'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).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28640 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 14:58:57
September 08 2019 14:45 GMT
#63
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.
Moderator
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28640 Posts
September 08 2019 14:55 GMT
#64
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.
Moderator
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 15:18 GMT
#65
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23168 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 15:28:34
September 08 2019 15:27 GMT
#66
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?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 15:59:35
September 08 2019 15:59 GMT
#67
--- Nuked ---
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28640 Posts
September 08 2019 15:59 GMT
#68
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.
Moderator
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 16:07 GMT
#69
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23168 Posts
September 08 2019 16:08 GMT
#70
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_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.


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.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28640 Posts
September 08 2019 16:13 GMT
#71
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.
Moderator
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 16:19 GMT
#72
--- Nuked ---
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 16:23 GMT
#73
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23168 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 16:32:56
September 08 2019 16:27 GMT
#74
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.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 16:37:53
September 08 2019 16:35 GMT
#75
--- Nuked ---
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28640 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 16:39:00
September 08 2019 16:36 GMT
#76
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.
Moderator
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23168 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-09-08 17:09:13
September 08 2019 16:45 GMT
#77
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.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
greenturtle23
Profile Joined August 2019
86 Posts
September 08 2019 18:56 GMT
#78
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.
arbiter_md
Profile Joined February 2008
Moldova1219 Posts
September 08 2019 19:13 GMT
#79
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.
The copyright of this post belongs solely to me. Nobody else, not teamliquid, not greetech and not even blizzard have any share of this copyright. You can copy, distribute, use in commercial purposes the content of this post or parts of it freely.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 08 2019 19:56 GMT
#80
--- Nuked ---
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV European League
12:00
Swiss Groups Day 2
WardiTV1226
TKL 381
Liquipedia
FEL
12:00
Cracov 2025: Qualifier #2
IndyStarCraft 302
CranKy Ducklings135
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
TKL 381
IndyStarCraft 302
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 6296
Rain 3230
Horang2 1632
Bisu 1580
Shuttle 1368
Jaedong 785
EffOrt 702
Hyuk 383
Stork 317
GuemChi 283
[ Show more ]
Leta 260
Mini 245
Rush 181
ToSsGirL 164
GoRush 120
Soma 110
Hyun 92
Free 82
TY 81
hero 77
Sacsri 57
Sea.KH 48
PianO 47
ajuk12(nOOB) 35
Barracks 35
HiyA 15
Terrorterran 10
ivOry 4
LuMiX 0
Dota 2
qojqva3441
canceldota412
XcaliburYe366
Fuzer 330
League of Legends
singsing2976
Counter-Strike
byalli272
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor560
Liquid`Hasu294
Other Games
Gorgc3303
B2W.Neo1480
DeMusliM682
Hui .211
ArmadaUGS109
KnowMe88
FrodaN34
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 71
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 4442
• WagamamaTV804
• Ler108
Upcoming Events
BSL: ProLeague
3h 31m
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
1d 9h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 19h
WardiTV European League
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
5 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
FEL
6 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 2v2 Season 3
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.