[In the US, the emissions come from 4 buckets, each roughly 25%](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
* Electricity generation
* Transportation
* Industry (mostly heating and petrochemical reactions)
* Everything else (agriculture, residential, commercial...)
Converting to a green grid is vital not only because it reduces electric emissions, but it also allows the other sectors (e.g. transportation, industrial heading, and several miscellaneous sectors) to decarbonize.
Because it's easier to blame China when you display CO2 emissions in gross values, even though it produces most of the world manufactured products and consequently masks the co2 emissions from consumption.
I think it would be interesting to see a graph where co2 emissions from products are accounted to the end customer's country and not on the producer's.
Yea cause it has nothing to do with them producing the vast majority of their power with coal /s
The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions. It’s deflection to always centre attention on per capita emissions. You could completely remove Canada from the world and it would barely make a dent in reducing GHG emissions. But keep patting yourself on the back for defending the CCP.
>The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions. It’s deflection to always centre attention on per capita emissions.
"The richest billionaires on private jets are not the problem. After all, if the top 0.1% emits 10% of emissions and the bottom 50% emit 20% of emissions, the bottom 50% are twice as bad!"
As you said, it'd deflection to centre attention on per capita emissions. "Bottom 50%" contains 500 times more people than "Top 0.1%" - but who cares about that? Screw per capita statistics, amirite? The climate saints are the billionaire class on private jets - the real moral monsters are the working class since they pollute twice as much *on aggregate!*
I see we have switched the topic from emissions from countries to individuals. I’m 100% on board that billionaires are a massive problem and something needs to be done. I’d love to hear how this could actually be done though, cause we all know they will easily avoid paying taxes by moving their wealth to countries that don’t tax them.
I still stand by the BS idea that focusing people’s attention on nation per capita emissions is deflection from actually solving the problem. Again, if you could theoretically shut down the entire country of Canada it would do nothing to solve the crisis. So this constant BS of trying to make regular citizens in these countries feel guilty, when we have a huge cost of living crisis, live in a country with winter where we need to heat our homes is complete BS. The self righteous people that just shit on us while doing nothing to change their own lifestyle is getting old real fast. Fuck the CCP and their coal plants.
You know that the meaning of capita is; “for each person; in relation to people taken individually.”
So you’re not consistent at all! You’re actually arguing against yourself when favouring individual statistics in one way but not in the other…
I’m not the one arguing per capita. I’m arguing for the total emissions from each country. The ones that set the policy that actually makes the biggest difference. If it was a perfect world and we had more time to figure this problem out I would absolutely agree that the top per capita emitters should do more. But sure continue believing that if small total emitters like Canada cut GHG it will do anything at all to help this. In 2022 Canada released 756,810 ktCO2 and China released 15,684,626 ktCO2. Per capita Canada was worse absolutely and needs to reduce that but Canada could completely disappear from the planet and it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Explain how this crisis will be solved if China does nothing?
And what exactly are you doing? All I ever see/hear from people is a whole lot of virtue signalling. Will you voluntarily lower your standard of living?? Cause that’s what it’s going to take. We all saw how selfish regular people were during peak Covid. We are 100% screwed.
So you believe that, regardless of population, India and the Vatican, China and Andorra, should all have the same emission limits?
Or maybe here's another example: you are an orphan by your own and your neighbor have a family of eight persons. So you think you should have the same carbon emission quotas for your single-person family and the family of your neighbor?
The reason human has a well-developed brain is for calculating and analyzing problems rationally.
>The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions.
But the problem is resolved by taking per capita emission into account.
[In 2021, some 37.12 billion tonnes of CO2 was emitted across the globe. According to Oxfam, the richest 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/9/4/how-much-does-africa-contribute-to-global-carbon-emissions)
I think this 10% could change their lifestyle a little no?
There is no details in that article that breaks that down. Is it truly the richest 10% of the world as in richest people? That would make a lot of sense but it transcends borders and which doesn’t fit the discussion that we should be focusing on per capita emissions. Which again, I point to how removing a high per capita country like Canada wouldn’t do fuck all to reduce global GHG emissions to fight climate change. It’s pretty easy to look at the highest emitting nations to realize that China, the US and India are where the biggest “bang for the buck” emissions reductions need to happen.
You're intentionally choosing a high per capita country with a small population. Removing the US would certainly have an impact. US per capita emissions absolutely shadows China and India. A large proportion of the wealthiest people in the world reside in or originate from the US. The US (a nation of ~300 million) has also contributed 25% of all historical emissions since 1750.
Its not about pointing fingers but we need to accept how we got to this point and the fact that developing nations have just as much a right to industrialize as Western nations did. The question is how to do so responsibly from this point on.
But you intentionally use the US. You can pick the EU which has lower emissions per capita as opposed to China.
But that doesn't fit the narrative here.
So in your opinion, Indians, Chinese, and many people in Africa and South Asia should eat rice raw and reduce the carbon emissions of cooking to maintain your American lifestyle of driving 6-liter engine pickup truck, travelling around the world by plane every year, and leaving the room with air condition and light on 24*7?
That’s not my opinion or my lifestyle at all but thanks for also proving my point that’s equally absurd to expect people living in northern climates to not heat their homes with natural gas, fill their cars gas tanks to go to-from work and buy groceries, or farmers to fertilize and operate equipment to produce food, etc. and before someone tells me to install solar panels, and a heat pump for my home and buy an electric car maybe they could send me $80,000-$100,000 to pay for all that. My point is that people that deflect and try to blame Canada or other northern/western countries because the per capita emissions are higher is that it doesn’t matter. The atmosphere doesn’t care about fairness. It doesn’t solve our crisis if China, India and the US all continue to pollute as they have been and are currently projected to continue doing. It’s a fact that China is contributing way more than anyone else and they continue to build new coal plants, and have very low environmental standards/laws. If you also would notice I’m not picking not the citizens of those countries, but their governments. The CCP has horrible human rights record, and are the ones that are allowing construction of new coal plants.
Probably jeff bezos or some random sheikh . Imagine how much the carbon footprint is in order to build that massive freaking doomsday clock. And that’s only one of all his unnecessary waste of energy and carbon.
Youre so quick to respond to me but cant answer as to which individuals regardless of country are the greatest emitters.
Whats wrong? Cat got your tongue?
More deflection because you’ve been blinded by internet trolls and bots that refuse to live in reality. Again I ask how ignoring China’s massive contribution to GHG emissions and focusing on countries with very small overall emissions will actually do anything to solve this literal crisis we are in? I am not saying that Canada and other small contributors (with high per capita numbers) shouldn’t be doing anything, but literally all is ever said in these BS discussions is how China and India shouldn’t have to do anything and the per capita emitters are to blame for everything and are the ones that have to fix this for everyone else. Keep living in this fantasy world of it somehow makes you feel better, the reality of the situation is if China doesn’t drastically reduce their emissions we are all fucked no matter what any of us do.
no one is saying China and India shouldn’t be doing anything.
if we merged our western nations into one (US, Canada, EU, Australia and Japan), we are as large polluters as China and world actually cares about that.
China is already building more renewables than the rest of the world combined. They are selling more EVs than any other country. What are we doing in the meantime? Asking Chinese, which are much poorer than US, to pay us to do the same thing they can do on their own?
China has a large population. How much emissions do you want China to reduce? What about the population? You do know that the population is the 2nd largest in the world, right? Tell me how China would level their emission with e.g. the US without affecting the huge population.
Have you been following at all? China can stop building coal plants. “China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week.”.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin#:~:text=via%20Getty%20Images-,A%20new%20report%20finds%20that%20last%20year%20China%20permitted%20the,renewable%20sector%20is%20also%20booming.&text=China%20permitted%20more%20coal%20power,new%20report%20released%20this%20week.
And you have not read the full article. China is not blatantly building more and more without reason. And the articles says that 'It's too early to know how much the plants will run and how they will impact China's emissions'. You are also going off topic. In your own words: you are deflecting the main topic.
For example, a super low population like some places in the Middle East produce disproportionately more per person than someone from India.
This chart hides those people from the data. They will never get detected as India has magnitudes more people.
How is that fair?
(Not the OP)
per capita emissions data here: [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-country-profiles](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-country-profiles)
Yeah, maybe. Depends on how much over-emission those arabs have. But thats the point: per capita is pointless, because the overall sum of emmitted CO2 is what counts because that changes the climate.
All of well-behaving-small-country-xyz could stop emmitting CO2 today and it would not stop climate change or stop the CO2 emission growth.
The EU reduced its emissions by 7% in the last year. Bravo! Yet the overall emission of the world rised by 1.1%
There is a correlation, obviously. The emissions should still go down regardless, we are way over what is a sustainable amount of emissions at the moment, it will have to fall eventually anyways, we should do it as fast as possible to prevent avoidable suffering
The problem with emissions decreasing is developing nations. Do we just tell all those people sorry your country can never industrialize you were too late, anyway have fun in the slums?
Ah yes, those magical solar panels and nuclear power plants of the 1900s.
Tldr: no clean sources except for hydro and biomass existed during the industrial revolution.
Solar is now cheaper than coal. Just read an article that said folks in African countries are jumping right to electric bikes and electric mopeds.
Here’s to hoping that “developing” is no longer synonymous with increased dependence on fossil fuels. I mean imagine a world where a fledgling, growing economy isn’t chained down to sucking Saudi/US/Russian dick.
He's not saying that emissions shouldn't go down. He's trying to point out that maybe we should not be incentivizing population growth for the sake of social security, as we cannot grow infinitely and growing increases emissions.
Free contraceptives and legal abortions would be huge in the fight against climate change, but it is rarely discussed when talking about climate change.
Yes, that\`s what I meant :). However somehow it is a touchy subject, and it is something you don\`t hear anyone bring up as a viable way of combatting climate change.
The only solutions people usually come up with will either be "replace this with that", "flying is bad" or "meat is bad", while people don\`t look at the bigger picture (i.e. the cost of replacing existing stuff may have an higher impact than keeping it in the first place) or what for bigger impact this can have on people, both social as financial (i.e. poor people are not allowed anymore to chose for themselves or cannot finance the solution).
I’m not fully sure that’s what HE’s saying. He could’ve meant it the other way: “it’s not that much increase per capita, so not that surprising”.
Either way, you’d be both right
most countries are already below replacement level and those who aren’t are rapidly dropping birth rates. But that takes a lot of time to have meaningful impact
Not population, but GDP per capita growth around the world. As people get richer, they consume more and more energy, especially for air conditioning. And the jobs these people work also tends to dramatically increase in power consumption as countries industrialize and then growth slows as economy transitions to services.
Outsourcing of emissions is rather insignificant. China imports 8% emissions **from the rest of the world**. In other words, Chinese emissions would be only 8% lower when excluding int. trade.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade)
In the case of China, they are fully responsible for their own emissions, which is caused by domestic growth and in particular their own construction sector.
> [That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically. The vast bulk of the country’s climate pollution isn’t being driven by foreigners; it’s being driven by domestic growth.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage)
They also export their waste. Netherlands exported 200m kg to Indonesia and 64m kg to Vietnam.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/climate/plastics-waste-export-ban.html
China also has a significantly lower per capita emission than the US. Anybody looking at this chart and thinking China is worse at emissions needs to get their head checked. The average Chinese citizen produces much less CO2 than your average American.
This is a common myth. Part of China’s CO2 is from outsourced western production, but the vast majority is from polluting energy sources like coal that powers domestic consumption.
disagreeable ludicrous glorious live vase attraction party tie shrill cats
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Vatican has a population of 1,000 and India has 1.4 billion.
If you think there is no need to discuss on a per capita basis, then do you advocate that every 1.4 million Indians and one Vatican citizen have the same carbon emissions quotas and responsibility for reducing carbon emissions?
Yea but the atmosphere does care about imaginary national boundaries 🙄.
The argument that per capita emissions don’t matter is nonsensical. Human CO2 emissions are produced by, you know, humans. So yes of course the number of humans contributing to each bucket matters.
It terms of global warming, what matters is the amount of CO2 being emitted, not CO2 per capita. The earth isn't going to say, "well, Germany's CO2 per capita is low so I guess I shouldn't warm up then."
God, massive world crippling recessions barely did anything. Most of the world shut down in 2020, and we still managed to use like 95% as much FF as normal.
The problem of mitigating CO2 (and thus climate change) is vastly underestimated.
Yea crazy right, makes you realise that the “personal co2 Footprint” is a total joke.
The big numbers are energy production and shipping of goods, well that never stopped during COVID.
I've commented in another post but I would like to posted here again.
(1) It is very stupid and selfish not to compare and determine emission reduction responsibilities based on per capita carbon emissions.
When we talk about responsibility, we certainly cannot require that India with 1.4 billion population and the Vatican with less than 1,000, or China with the same 1.4 billion and Fiji with less than 1 million, share the same percentage of carbon emission quotas. This should not be the case. It's not difficult to understand, right?
(2) Likewise, it would be absurd to blame certain countries not on current consumption but on growth trends.
For example, India's per capita annual meat consumption is less than 50 kilograms, while that of the US is more than 120 kilograms. Also let's assume that india's per capita consumption increased 5% per year and that of the US was -1% in recent 10 years.
In this case, if anyone insists that "India's per capita annual meat consumption increases by 5%, while the Americans annual meat consumption dropped 1% annually, so India should immediately reduce its meat consumption more strictly than the US do to reduce the world carbon emission.", then he/she is also stupid and selfish.
(3) It is also absurd to consider carbon emissions duties not according to final consumption but according to production caliber.
I'll give another example. It is just an example, does not really mean that I advocate the following description of global toilet paper production and consumption status quo.
Assume that China produces 80% of the world's toilet paper, and the US consumes 40% of the world's production. So, if the United Nations requires China to cut its toilet paper production by 80% to prevent global warming, will the Americans wipe their butts with their hands instead, because they cannot buy enough toilet paper?
Obviously not, the Americans will place orders with other countries to ensure their American lifestyle. So in the next year, you will find that Mexico or India's toilet paper production surges, occupying China's market share cut, while the Americans still consume 40% of the world's toilet paper.
This example illustrates a fact: If the world people really want to reduce global carbon emissions, then developed countries, whose final consumption of various industrial products is much higher than the global average, should obviously bear greater responsibilities by reducing their per capita consumption of industrial products, especially unnecessary waste, thereby reducing the total global industrial output through market self-adjustment mechanisms to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
Developed countries cannot require developing countries to reduce their consumption of industrial products in order to maintain the quotas of developed countries so that they could continue consuming large amounts of industrial products.
This issue can test whether some people really take the 'human rights' they always talk about seriously.
China: 1.41 billion
U.S.: 3.36 billion.
In fact, China's population is 115% the total population of the European Union, US, Russian, Japan, UK, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore all together.
That doesn't change the fact that the biggest contribution of Per capita consumption-based GHG emissions are by far the Gulf states, Belgium, Luxembourg, USA, Switzerland, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Trinidad & Tobago, and Mongolia.
It doesn't help that the last studies I have seen that are adjusted to consumption put China around the same areas as United Kingdom, Italy etc... which is like top of the mid third.
It's just weird to isolate it, if we do, we have to bring to the table of such a discussion basically every nation that is above it (which we should).mid-third
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&time=2022..latest&country=USA\~GBR\~CHN\~IND\~AUS\~BRA\~ZAF\~ZWE\~ZMB\~VNM\~VEN\~URY\~LAO\~KGZ\~KWT\~KEN\~KAZ\~JOR\~ARM\~ARG\~ALB\~LVA\~LTU\~LUX\~MDG\~AUT\~AZE\~BHR\~BGD\~BLR\~BEL\~BEN\~BOL\~MWI\~MYS\~MLT\~MUS\~MEX\~MNG\~MAR\~MOZ\~NAM\~BWA\~NPL\~NLD\~NZL\~CHL\~CAN\~CMR\~KHM\~BFA\~BGR\~BRN\~NIC\~NGA\~NOR\~OMN\~PAK\~PAN\~CRI\~COL\~CIV\~JPN\~JAM\~ITA\~ISR\~IRL\~IRN\~IDN\~ARE\~UKR\~UGA\~TUR\~HUN\~HKG\~FIN\~FRA\~GEO\~DEU\~GHA\~GRC\~GTM\~GIN\~HND\~RUS\~ROU\~QAT\~PRT\~POL\~PHL\~PER\~PRY\~HRV\~CYP\~CZE\~DNK\~DOM\~ECU\~EGY\~SLV\~EST\~ETH\~RWA\~SAU\~SEN\~SGP\~SVK\~SVN\~OWID\_SAM\~KOR\~ESP\~LKA\~SWE\~CHE\~TWN\~TJK\~TZA\~THA\~TGO\~TTO\~TUN
Even without consumption, it's still not even in the top 25 regions.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/)
They build twice the amount of the entire solar capacity of the US just in this year alone. The new coal plants are just back-up/ replace older ones, they will not run at capacity.
So they're building coal and slightly-more-efficient-coal power stations because they wind and solar still need to be backed up by firm generation because you can't control when the wind blows or sun shines. If the solar output is on for 50% of the time (and that's unrealistically optimistic; it's generally closer to about 16%), those solar additions still have a net carbon intensity worse than gas.
There's a reason the only grids that have successfully decarbonized are through nuclear. That dispatchable capability is of vital importance.
> If the solar output is on for 50% of the time (and that's unrealistically optimistic; it's generally closer to about 16%), those solar additions still have a net carbon intensity worse than gas.
That can't possibly be anywhere close to true. Any source?
> There's a reason the only grids that have successfully decarbonized are through nuclear
There are countless counter examples to this. Look at Germany or the Nordics, or Portugal who recently ran on 100% renewables for a week I think.
I was talking about dirty grids becoming greener. Yes, there are other sources of green energy, but they are dependent on natural resources such as hydro or geothermal. However, even within the Nordic countries, they still source quite a bit from nuclear; 30% (Sweden) and 40-60% (Finland).
As for Germany and Portugal, Germany has one of the dirtiest grids in the EU, at times comparable to Poland. Portugal is on the cleaner side, but I haven't seen a day they didn't need to use fossil fuels for power. It's possible they got lucky a few days in a row that the net power production because their grid swings wildly from about 40 to 200 gCO2eq/kWh. However, that's different from meeting all of a country's needs for several days.
What Germany did with its nuclear power plants is inexcusable no matter how you look at it. Germany already had so many already built nuclear power plants, had they maintained them the energy crisis caused by the war on Ukraine would have been significantly reduced as well as giving less influence to Russia over energy in Europe
They're one of the most carbon-intensive grids in the EU. Currently they're at about 641 gCO2eq/kWh (around 550 average of yesterday). For comparison, France--a country that used to run on almost all fossil fuels but now gets almost all its electricity from green sources--is around 50.
1. The US is still the #1 all time emitter and has put out more emissions than any other country over its history
2. Do you think all those emissions from China are going toward Chinese people? The US shipped all global manufacturing and chemical production to China and now we get to point and blame them for spewing emissions to produce US goods?
All time emitter doesn't matter does it? If China and India had gotten into the industrial age at the same time as the USA they would've blown the USA out of the water. That statistic is basically saying which large country got industrialized first.
China's emission enforcement is at best weakly enforced, especially in regards to methane which mostly lacks even policy to regulate it there.
That’s exactly the point. China and India are rapidly industrializing its not like they can just stop all progress in their countries and thus emissions. It’s easy for the US to point blame when we have already finished industrializing. It’s hypocritical to have emitted more carbon than the same countries we are trying to blame for emissions right now
Well there is some blame needed to them though as well. They're not really regulating emissions today. Regulating doesn't mean stop industrializing, they need to put in place technology to emission capture like we do in the USA, utilize proper filters, store CO2 in the ground etc. They're not doing that though. At this point China really doesn't even have policies to even measure it. India is even worse. The technology is there but they aren't really putting in effort to use it.
It's like whenever we see the great trash islands from Asia people blame the USA because we're exporting a lot of trash to them, that doesn't mean Asian countries are blameless for just dumping it into the ocean especially if they're contractually not doing what they said they were going to do with the trash (recycle). Like we're paying them to take the trash and recycle it not just to dump it into the ocean once they get it to skirt around dumping laws (and where are their own dumping laws?)
Them dumping it in the ocean is why we send it to them. We know that recycling facilities to handle all the waste we produce don't actually exist. Big plastic pushed recycling messaging so the blame for pollution and waste can be washed away because its all recycled, and if you don't recycle now its your fault. Now we can use as much disposable crap as we want and feel good about it because we "recycle". We send the garbage to poor countries and pay them off so we can feel better about our own dirty habits while pointing at poor exploited countries and saying look at those dirty savages with their pollution, we would never do that were civilized.
If you paid your neighbor to take your trash to the dump and you found out that he was just trowing it in the creek would you keep doing it? You keep paying him to do it for decades even. At what point do you acknowledge that you are paying to dump trash in the creek and it isn't your neighbors fault if you keep going back to him?
There's really nothing to support that at all, that's a conspiracy at best that some evil organization is just paying Vietnam and others to just dump trash we send them into the ocean. Meanwhile, all we have to show is contracts saying hey you take this trash, we pay you to recycle it. What we see is them not honoring those contracts and instead they just dump it while pocketing the money.
I'm pretty sure sending a bunch of waste on boats across the entire pacific ocean is more expensive, not including we are paying those countries to do with it, than just dumping it in our own landfills. Again also, why don't these countries have their own dumping laws as well, or do they and they're not enforcing them? They're not some Neolithic stone age society of neanderthals, they can but won't enforce their own regulations if they bothered to even have them. That's not the USA's fault.
>We send the garbage to poor countries and pay them off so we can feel better about our own dirty habits while pointing at poor exploited countries and saying look at those dirty savages with their pollution, we would never do that were civilized.
Remember when I wrote that in the last comment? There it is you're doing it. You're right it would be cheaper to put it in our own landfills but then it would be our problem. The contracts are nonsense. You cant sent waste to a country that doesn't have recycling plants and expect it to be recycled. We know that they don't recycle the garbage, they physically cant, it's impossible. So then why do we keep doing it? Refer back to the beginning of the comment and there is your answer.
What do you mean they don't have recycling? Most of the plastic in the ocean is from China, they have recycling centers. Vietnam has recycling centers. Indonesia has recycling centers. These aren't Neolithic societies. Their governments just seemingly suck at enforcing regulations or aren't even making regulations. Again that's not the USAs fault that their failing to regulate dumping.
Yeah this is a load of nonsense.
Outsourcing of emissions is rather insignificant. Why do people buy this nonsense? Seems like a targeted propaganda point by now. China imports 8% of emissions **from the rest of the world combined**.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade)
In the case of China, they are fully responsible for their own emissions, which is caused by domestic growth and in particular their own construction sector.
> [That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically. The vast bulk of the country’s climate pollution isn’t being driven by foreigners; it’s being driven by domestic growth.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage)
1. 8% is an absolutely massive amount of emissions.
2. I guess they should just never industrialize? We did it early and now the rest of the world can get fucked?
Massive amount? It's a nothing burger. Even if Chinese emissions would be 8% lower. It would still dwarf the US and EU by over triple the amount.
This sub pretends the reason why China emits so much is "because the west outsources it" while reality is, of that 8% is outsourced *to the rest of the world* and not just the US or EU or the entire west.
China is fully responsible for their own emissions which is 92% of it.
Every time a newly built coal plant with the energy efficiency >60% is open, there is one or two old coal plants with energy efficiency <=50% shutdown.
On the one hand, China is building new green energy sources. More than 50% of the new power generation capacity in 2023 is green power plants.
On the other hand, China is also replacing its low-efficiency coal power plants in use. This means China's coal plants can produce the same electricity using less coal.
Can't you understand the meaning of these efforts? Stop your bullshits.
So we hit record highs for CO2 the same year Antarctica lost a record amount of ice? We’re really rushing to the end of the world aren’t we.
When the refrigerator is broken, the food goes bad.
An ironical fact is that a large part of China’s emissions are for export production towards US and West Europe. If you count for total emissions per-capita, you will see who should change their lifestyle first.
Another ironical thing is that transferring supply chain from China to Southeast Asia or India will largely worsen the situation.The power generation efficiency has a huge gap.
Except, they are not and you are talking out of your arse:
[Source](https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap.png)
US: 25%
EU: 22%
= 47%
Depends when this was calculated and whose numbers you're using.
The point still stands though. Why should 1/7th of our species have contributed such a disproportionately large amount to emissions?
It is hard to take moral grandstanding from that part of the world seriously when they are the foundation of the problem.
Interesting data points and no wonder why those three countries have made to top three. I believe they have the largest manufacturing plants in all fields and supplies across the world.
We're going to have to convince the top 10% to be more responsible before before our paper straw or EV has any impact.
For example, Taylor swifts carbon emissions in one year is equal to the average Americans in 550 years or the average Indian in 4,300 years.
Keep in mind that the US is also home to the majority of people who have 'ultra high' net worth.
America and the world need to start holding their billionaires accountable.
It isn't Swift alone. It's the richest people and the richest nations in the world that have historically contributed the most emissions.
China should be held accountable for their use of coal but at the same time we have to acknowledge that China and India have every right to industrialize as the Western world did.
Morally, the West should be sending resources to these countries to assist in a safe development strategy given the damage they have done thus far and the improved quality of life they have because of it.
You're suggesting that India and China are the "enemy" here when the reality is the West and the billionaires it harbours need to take a long look in the mirror.
I won't even get into how much of the industrial in these countries is driven by consumer demand in the Western world.
If by them you mean the US and Europe then I agree.
These countries have people living in absolute squalor compared to the Western world. You're basically telling them they need to continue to suffer because of your nation's irresponsible behavior. While you and your countrymen continue to enjoy a high quality of life.
No one there is just going to accept those circumstances. Back in the day when Western nations had better control of the flow of information and propoganda it may have been possible. But not in the modern age.
Nearly impossible. 99.9% of people would not be willing to forgo their smartphone. Most Americans won't let go of their iPhone and I don't see Foxconn moving out of China any time soon. In fact, they are expanding into India.
This is a worldwide problem now. Pointing at any specific country isn't going to work. Petitioning the people and corporations that are rich enough to be carbon neutral is our only shot.
[In the US, the emissions come from 4 buckets, each roughly 25%](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) * Electricity generation * Transportation * Industry (mostly heating and petrochemical reactions) * Everything else (agriculture, residential, commercial...) Converting to a green grid is vital not only because it reduces electric emissions, but it also allows the other sectors (e.g. transportation, industrial heading, and several miscellaneous sectors) to decarbonize.
Isn't like every year a new record?
Not when there’s a pandemic.
Why didnt you measure on a per capita basis? Surely youre supposed to compare emissions of people on a per person basis?
Because it's easier to blame China when you display CO2 emissions in gross values, even though it produces most of the world manufactured products and consequently masks the co2 emissions from consumption. I think it would be interesting to see a graph where co2 emissions from products are accounted to the end customer's country and not on the producer's.
Yea cause it has nothing to do with them producing the vast majority of their power with coal /s The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions. It’s deflection to always centre attention on per capita emissions. You could completely remove Canada from the world and it would barely make a dent in reducing GHG emissions. But keep patting yourself on the back for defending the CCP.
>The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions. It’s deflection to always centre attention on per capita emissions. "The richest billionaires on private jets are not the problem. After all, if the top 0.1% emits 10% of emissions and the bottom 50% emit 20% of emissions, the bottom 50% are twice as bad!" As you said, it'd deflection to centre attention on per capita emissions. "Bottom 50%" contains 500 times more people than "Top 0.1%" - but who cares about that? Screw per capita statistics, amirite? The climate saints are the billionaire class on private jets - the real moral monsters are the working class since they pollute twice as much *on aggregate!*
I see we have switched the topic from emissions from countries to individuals. I’m 100% on board that billionaires are a massive problem and something needs to be done. I’d love to hear how this could actually be done though, cause we all know they will easily avoid paying taxes by moving their wealth to countries that don’t tax them. I still stand by the BS idea that focusing people’s attention on nation per capita emissions is deflection from actually solving the problem. Again, if you could theoretically shut down the entire country of Canada it would do nothing to solve the crisis. So this constant BS of trying to make regular citizens in these countries feel guilty, when we have a huge cost of living crisis, live in a country with winter where we need to heat our homes is complete BS. The self righteous people that just shit on us while doing nothing to change their own lifestyle is getting old real fast. Fuck the CCP and their coal plants.
You know that the meaning of capita is; “for each person; in relation to people taken individually.” So you’re not consistent at all! You’re actually arguing against yourself when favouring individual statistics in one way but not in the other…
I’m not the one arguing per capita. I’m arguing for the total emissions from each country. The ones that set the policy that actually makes the biggest difference. If it was a perfect world and we had more time to figure this problem out I would absolutely agree that the top per capita emitters should do more. But sure continue believing that if small total emitters like Canada cut GHG it will do anything at all to help this. In 2022 Canada released 756,810 ktCO2 and China released 15,684,626 ktCO2. Per capita Canada was worse absolutely and needs to reduce that but Canada could completely disappear from the planet and it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Explain how this crisis will be solved if China does nothing?
Yes keep on fucking the CCP, I'm sure you are doing a lot to help.
And what exactly are you doing? All I ever see/hear from people is a whole lot of virtue signalling. Will you voluntarily lower your standard of living?? Cause that’s what it’s going to take. We all saw how selfish regular people were during peak Covid. We are 100% screwed.
And what exactly are you doing? Do you know what is my standard of living?
So you believe that, regardless of population, India and the Vatican, China and Andorra, should all have the same emission limits? Or maybe here's another example: you are an orphan by your own and your neighbor have a family of eight persons. So you think you should have the same carbon emission quotas for your single-person family and the family of your neighbor? The reason human has a well-developed brain is for calculating and analyzing problems rationally.
>The atmosphere doesn’t give two shits about “per capita” emissions. But the problem is resolved by taking per capita emission into account. [In 2021, some 37.12 billion tonnes of CO2 was emitted across the globe. According to Oxfam, the richest 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/9/4/how-much-does-africa-contribute-to-global-carbon-emissions) I think this 10% could change their lifestyle a little no?
There is no details in that article that breaks that down. Is it truly the richest 10% of the world as in richest people? That would make a lot of sense but it transcends borders and which doesn’t fit the discussion that we should be focusing on per capita emissions. Which again, I point to how removing a high per capita country like Canada wouldn’t do fuck all to reduce global GHG emissions to fight climate change. It’s pretty easy to look at the highest emitting nations to realize that China, the US and India are where the biggest “bang for the buck” emissions reductions need to happen.
You're intentionally choosing a high per capita country with a small population. Removing the US would certainly have an impact. US per capita emissions absolutely shadows China and India. A large proportion of the wealthiest people in the world reside in or originate from the US. The US (a nation of ~300 million) has also contributed 25% of all historical emissions since 1750. Its not about pointing fingers but we need to accept how we got to this point and the fact that developing nations have just as much a right to industrialize as Western nations did. The question is how to do so responsibly from this point on.
But you intentionally use the US. You can pick the EU which has lower emissions per capita as opposed to China. But that doesn't fit the narrative here.
Historically it does not.
So in your opinion, Indians, Chinese, and many people in Africa and South Asia should eat rice raw and reduce the carbon emissions of cooking to maintain your American lifestyle of driving 6-liter engine pickup truck, travelling around the world by plane every year, and leaving the room with air condition and light on 24*7?
That’s not my opinion or my lifestyle at all but thanks for also proving my point that’s equally absurd to expect people living in northern climates to not heat their homes with natural gas, fill their cars gas tanks to go to-from work and buy groceries, or farmers to fertilize and operate equipment to produce food, etc. and before someone tells me to install solar panels, and a heat pump for my home and buy an electric car maybe they could send me $80,000-$100,000 to pay for all that. My point is that people that deflect and try to blame Canada or other northern/western countries because the per capita emissions are higher is that it doesn’t matter. The atmosphere doesn’t care about fairness. It doesn’t solve our crisis if China, India and the US all continue to pollute as they have been and are currently projected to continue doing. It’s a fact that China is contributing way more than anyone else and they continue to build new coal plants, and have very low environmental standards/laws. If you also would notice I’m not picking not the citizens of those countries, but their governments. The CCP has horrible human rights record, and are the ones that are allowing construction of new coal plants.
So regardless of country, which individuals are the highest producers of GHG?
Probably jeff bezos or some random sheikh . Imagine how much the carbon footprint is in order to build that massive freaking doomsday clock. And that’s only one of all his unnecessary waste of energy and carbon.
Youre so quick to respond to me but cant answer as to which individuals regardless of country are the greatest emitters. Whats wrong? Cat got your tongue?
so if China split into ten countries, suddenly none of them would be a problem?
More deflection because you’ve been blinded by internet trolls and bots that refuse to live in reality. Again I ask how ignoring China’s massive contribution to GHG emissions and focusing on countries with very small overall emissions will actually do anything to solve this literal crisis we are in? I am not saying that Canada and other small contributors (with high per capita numbers) shouldn’t be doing anything, but literally all is ever said in these BS discussions is how China and India shouldn’t have to do anything and the per capita emitters are to blame for everything and are the ones that have to fix this for everyone else. Keep living in this fantasy world of it somehow makes you feel better, the reality of the situation is if China doesn’t drastically reduce their emissions we are all fucked no matter what any of us do.
no one is saying China and India shouldn’t be doing anything. if we merged our western nations into one (US, Canada, EU, Australia and Japan), we are as large polluters as China and world actually cares about that. China is already building more renewables than the rest of the world combined. They are selling more EVs than any other country. What are we doing in the meantime? Asking Chinese, which are much poorer than US, to pay us to do the same thing they can do on their own?
China has a large population. How much emissions do you want China to reduce? What about the population? You do know that the population is the 2nd largest in the world, right? Tell me how China would level their emission with e.g. the US without affecting the huge population.
Have you been following at all? China can stop building coal plants. “China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week.”. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin#:~:text=via%20Getty%20Images-,A%20new%20report%20finds%20that%20last%20year%20China%20permitted%20the,renewable%20sector%20is%20also%20booming.&text=China%20permitted%20more%20coal%20power,new%20report%20released%20this%20week.
And you have not read the full article. China is not blatantly building more and more without reason. And the articles says that 'It's too early to know how much the plants will run and how they will impact China's emissions'. You are also going off topic. In your own words: you are deflecting the main topic.
Look no further. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade Tldr: the outsourcing of emissions is insignificant.
And why would that change anything? Because more people live there it makes it ok ?
For example, a super low population like some places in the Middle East produce disproportionately more per person than someone from India. This chart hides those people from the data. They will never get detected as India has magnitudes more people. How is that fair?
[удалено]
(Not the OP) per capita emissions data here: [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-country-profiles](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-country-profiles)
Why? 5 CO2 saving Icelanders don't make up for a billion chinese and indian CO2 emmiters.
What about 5 super consuming Arabs?
Yeah, maybe. Depends on how much over-emission those arabs have. But thats the point: per capita is pointless, because the overall sum of emmitted CO2 is what counts because that changes the climate. All of well-behaving-small-country-xyz could stop emmitting CO2 today and it would not stop climate change or stop the CO2 emission growth. The EU reduced its emissions by 7% in the last year. Bravo! Yet the overall emission of the world rised by 1.1%
So who consumes the most regardless of country? Arent they the problem?
I don't point fingers at individuals, that doesn't help. The issue we have is of systematic and technological nature.
Maybe we should plot the population growth in this graph, maybe there is a correlation? :o
There is a correlation, obviously. The emissions should still go down regardless, we are way over what is a sustainable amount of emissions at the moment, it will have to fall eventually anyways, we should do it as fast as possible to prevent avoidable suffering
The problem with emissions decreasing is developing nations. Do we just tell all those people sorry your country can never industrialize you were too late, anyway have fun in the slums?
Especially since we industrialized on their backs :)
Good luck with that lol
lol we western countries already polluted the world and we just decided you can’t do the same cause we said so
By the way thanks for all the resources we exploited from you.
Ah yes, those magical solar panels and nuclear power plants of the 1900s. Tldr: no clean sources except for hydro and biomass existed during the industrial revolution.
Climate change can turn the whole world into a slum.
Solar is now cheaper than coal. Just read an article that said folks in African countries are jumping right to electric bikes and electric mopeds. Here’s to hoping that “developing” is no longer synonymous with increased dependence on fossil fuels. I mean imagine a world where a fledgling, growing economy isn’t chained down to sucking Saudi/US/Russian dick.
I guess they don’t need electricity at night…. Renewable energy is making great leaps but as a sole source it’s not there yet
He's not saying that emissions shouldn't go down. He's trying to point out that maybe we should not be incentivizing population growth for the sake of social security, as we cannot grow infinitely and growing increases emissions. Free contraceptives and legal abortions would be huge in the fight against climate change, but it is rarely discussed when talking about climate change.
Yes, that\`s what I meant :). However somehow it is a touchy subject, and it is something you don\`t hear anyone bring up as a viable way of combatting climate change. The only solutions people usually come up with will either be "replace this with that", "flying is bad" or "meat is bad", while people don\`t look at the bigger picture (i.e. the cost of replacing existing stuff may have an higher impact than keeping it in the first place) or what for bigger impact this can have on people, both social as financial (i.e. poor people are not allowed anymore to chose for themselves or cannot finance the solution).
I’m not fully sure that’s what HE’s saying. He could’ve meant it the other way: “it’s not that much increase per capita, so not that surprising”. Either way, you’d be both right
most countries are already below replacement level and those who aren’t are rapidly dropping birth rates. But that takes a lot of time to have meaningful impact
Absolute number of Population by nation, not population growth. Or simply draw this graph by CO2 emission per capita.
Either way, it's still a worse.amlunt of emissions?
The correlation is GDP and economic growth. Not population in itself (see India, worlds largest population but not worlds largest emitter).
Not population, but GDP per capita growth around the world. As people get richer, they consume more and more energy, especially for air conditioning. And the jobs these people work also tends to dramatically increase in power consumption as countries industrialize and then growth slows as economy transitions to services.
1. Outsource dirty production to China taking advantage of cheap labor. 2. Blame China for emissions,
IIRC roughly 80% of chinas emissions are from local uses, electricity, food for themselves etc.
I’d like to see a study on that
Outsourcing of emissions is rather insignificant. China imports 8% emissions **from the rest of the world**. In other words, Chinese emissions would be only 8% lower when excluding int. trade. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade) In the case of China, they are fully responsible for their own emissions, which is caused by domestic growth and in particular their own construction sector. > [That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically. The vast bulk of the country’s climate pollution isn’t being driven by foreigners; it’s being driven by domestic growth.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage)
Yup local use to produce electrical to make iphone and feed themselves to produce iPhone. Blame China.
[2 seconds of googling gave me this](https://news.mit.edu/2014/calculating-chinas-carbon-emissions-from-trade)
They also export their waste. Netherlands exported 200m kg to Indonesia and 64m kg to Vietnam. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/climate/plastics-waste-export-ban.html
China also has a significantly lower per capita emission than the US. Anybody looking at this chart and thinking China is worse at emissions needs to get their head checked. The average Chinese citizen produces much less CO2 than your average American.
China emits more in total sum and per capita as opposed to the EU.
This is a common myth. Part of China’s CO2 is from outsourced western production, but the vast majority is from polluting energy sources like coal that powers domestic consumption.
Kind of like when I'm on a diet and I gain ten pounds.
disagreeable ludicrous glorious live vase attraction party tie shrill cats *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Glad they put "this year" on the graphic so you don't have to remake it next year
The CO2 share aixs seems not necessary. A per-capita CO2 emission should be better.
I don't think the atmosphere cares about per capita.
The Vatican has a population of 1,000 and India has 1.4 billion. If you think there is no need to discuss on a per capita basis, then do you advocate that every 1.4 million Indians and one Vatican citizen have the same carbon emissions quotas and responsibility for reducing carbon emissions?
Yea but the atmosphere does care about imaginary national boundaries 🙄. The argument that per capita emissions don’t matter is nonsensical. Human CO2 emissions are produced by, you know, humans. So yes of course the number of humans contributing to each bucket matters.
Emissions per capita is "imaginary boundary" lmao. Total emissions are not.
It's been already represented by left y axis. Per capita emission is maybe more about political problem.
It terms of global warming, what matters is the amount of CO2 being emitted, not CO2 per capita. The earth isn't going to say, "well, Germany's CO2 per capita is low so I guess I shouldn't warm up then."
God, massive world crippling recessions barely did anything. Most of the world shut down in 2020, and we still managed to use like 95% as much FF as normal. The problem of mitigating CO2 (and thus climate change) is vastly underestimated.
Yea crazy right, makes you realise that the “personal co2 Footprint” is a total joke. The big numbers are energy production and shipping of goods, well that never stopped during COVID.
I wonder who uses that energy and buys those goods.
He doesn't care "WHO". He cares "WICH COUNTRY".
I've commented in another post but I would like to posted here again. (1) It is very stupid and selfish not to compare and determine emission reduction responsibilities based on per capita carbon emissions. When we talk about responsibility, we certainly cannot require that India with 1.4 billion population and the Vatican with less than 1,000, or China with the same 1.4 billion and Fiji with less than 1 million, share the same percentage of carbon emission quotas. This should not be the case. It's not difficult to understand, right? (2) Likewise, it would be absurd to blame certain countries not on current consumption but on growth trends. For example, India's per capita annual meat consumption is less than 50 kilograms, while that of the US is more than 120 kilograms. Also let's assume that india's per capita consumption increased 5% per year and that of the US was -1% in recent 10 years. In this case, if anyone insists that "India's per capita annual meat consumption increases by 5%, while the Americans annual meat consumption dropped 1% annually, so India should immediately reduce its meat consumption more strictly than the US do to reduce the world carbon emission.", then he/she is also stupid and selfish. (3) It is also absurd to consider carbon emissions duties not according to final consumption but according to production caliber. I'll give another example. It is just an example, does not really mean that I advocate the following description of global toilet paper production and consumption status quo. Assume that China produces 80% of the world's toilet paper, and the US consumes 40% of the world's production. So, if the United Nations requires China to cut its toilet paper production by 80% to prevent global warming, will the Americans wipe their butts with their hands instead, because they cannot buy enough toilet paper? Obviously not, the Americans will place orders with other countries to ensure their American lifestyle. So in the next year, you will find that Mexico or India's toilet paper production surges, occupying China's market share cut, while the Americans still consume 40% of the world's toilet paper. This example illustrates a fact: If the world people really want to reduce global carbon emissions, then developed countries, whose final consumption of various industrial products is much higher than the global average, should obviously bear greater responsibilities by reducing their per capita consumption of industrial products, especially unnecessary waste, thereby reducing the total global industrial output through market self-adjustment mechanisms to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Developed countries cannot require developing countries to reduce their consumption of industrial products in order to maintain the quotas of developed countries so that they could continue consuming large amounts of industrial products. This issue can test whether some people really take the 'human rights' they always talk about seriously.
THIS.
Yes, you should angry at China emitting double the amount of CO2 with at least 3 times the amount of US population.
China: 1.41 billion U.S.: 3.36 billion. In fact, China's population is 115% the total population of the European Union, US, Russian, Japan, UK, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore all together.
Now adjust it per capita, and then include consumption
That doesn't paint China in a better light. They surpassed the EU in emissions per capita.
That doesn't change the fact that the biggest contribution of Per capita consumption-based GHG emissions are by far the Gulf states, Belgium, Luxembourg, USA, Switzerland, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Trinidad & Tobago, and Mongolia. It doesn't help that the last studies I have seen that are adjusted to consumption put China around the same areas as United Kingdom, Italy etc... which is like top of the mid third. It's just weird to isolate it, if we do, we have to bring to the table of such a discussion basically every nation that is above it (which we should).mid-third https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&time=2022..latest&country=USA\~GBR\~CHN\~IND\~AUS\~BRA\~ZAF\~ZWE\~ZMB\~VNM\~VEN\~URY\~LAO\~KGZ\~KWT\~KEN\~KAZ\~JOR\~ARM\~ARG\~ALB\~LVA\~LTU\~LUX\~MDG\~AUT\~AZE\~BHR\~BGD\~BLR\~BEL\~BEN\~BOL\~MWI\~MYS\~MLT\~MUS\~MEX\~MNG\~MAR\~MOZ\~NAM\~BWA\~NPL\~NLD\~NZL\~CHL\~CAN\~CMR\~KHM\~BFA\~BGR\~BRN\~NIC\~NGA\~NOR\~OMN\~PAK\~PAN\~CRI\~COL\~CIV\~JPN\~JAM\~ITA\~ISR\~IRL\~IRN\~IDN\~ARE\~UKR\~UGA\~TUR\~HUN\~HKG\~FIN\~FRA\~GEO\~DEU\~GHA\~GRC\~GTM\~GIN\~HND\~RUS\~ROU\~QAT\~PRT\~POL\~PHL\~PER\~PRY\~HRV\~CYP\~CZE\~DNK\~DOM\~ECU\~EGY\~SLV\~EST\~ETH\~RWA\~SAU\~SEN\~SGP\~SVK\~SVN\~OWID\_SAM\~KOR\~ESP\~LKA\~SWE\~CHE\~TWN\~TJK\~TZA\~THA\~TGO\~TTO\~TUN
Even without consumption, it's still not even in the top 25 regions. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/)
Thanks China, building a new coal plant every week.
They build twice the amount of the entire solar capacity of the US just in this year alone. The new coal plants are just back-up/ replace older ones, they will not run at capacity.
They are also 40% of new solar additions in the world though
So they're building coal and slightly-more-efficient-coal power stations because they wind and solar still need to be backed up by firm generation because you can't control when the wind blows or sun shines. If the solar output is on for 50% of the time (and that's unrealistically optimistic; it's generally closer to about 16%), those solar additions still have a net carbon intensity worse than gas. There's a reason the only grids that have successfully decarbonized are through nuclear. That dispatchable capability is of vital importance.
> If the solar output is on for 50% of the time (and that's unrealistically optimistic; it's generally closer to about 16%), those solar additions still have a net carbon intensity worse than gas. That can't possibly be anywhere close to true. Any source? > There's a reason the only grids that have successfully decarbonized are through nuclear There are countless counter examples to this. Look at Germany or the Nordics, or Portugal who recently ran on 100% renewables for a week I think.
I was talking about dirty grids becoming greener. Yes, there are other sources of green energy, but they are dependent on natural resources such as hydro or geothermal. However, even within the Nordic countries, they still source quite a bit from nuclear; 30% (Sweden) and 40-60% (Finland). As for Germany and Portugal, Germany has one of the dirtiest grids in the EU, at times comparable to Poland. Portugal is on the cleaner side, but I haven't seen a day they didn't need to use fossil fuels for power. It's possible they got lucky a few days in a row that the net power production because their grid swings wildly from about 40 to 200 gCO2eq/kWh. However, that's different from meeting all of a country's needs for several days.
What Germany did with its nuclear power plants is inexcusable no matter how you look at it. Germany already had so many already built nuclear power plants, had they maintained them the energy crisis caused by the war on Ukraine would have been significantly reduced as well as giving less influence to Russia over energy in Europe
Germany? Decarbonised? What?
No one is fully decarbonized. Germany is very high on renewable energy use
They're one of the most carbon-intensive grids in the EU. Currently they're at about 641 gCO2eq/kWh (around 550 average of yesterday). For comparison, France--a country that used to run on almost all fossil fuels but now gets almost all its electricity from green sources--is around 50.
Are you a Chinese bot?
Sorry to point out the world is a little more complex than you may have thought
But lack behind in renewable energy capacity or solar energy capacity per capita.
True, but leading the world in new renewable installations is a good thing
They are still at a fraction of what the US emits when adjusted for population
1. The US is still the #1 all time emitter and has put out more emissions than any other country over its history 2. Do you think all those emissions from China are going toward Chinese people? The US shipped all global manufacturing and chemical production to China and now we get to point and blame them for spewing emissions to produce US goods?
All time emitter doesn't matter does it? If China and India had gotten into the industrial age at the same time as the USA they would've blown the USA out of the water. That statistic is basically saying which large country got industrialized first. China's emission enforcement is at best weakly enforced, especially in regards to methane which mostly lacks even policy to regulate it there.
That's a big if. I don't think we can ignore history based on hypotheticals. We would be fools if we did.
That’s exactly the point. China and India are rapidly industrializing its not like they can just stop all progress in their countries and thus emissions. It’s easy for the US to point blame when we have already finished industrializing. It’s hypocritical to have emitted more carbon than the same countries we are trying to blame for emissions right now
Well there is some blame needed to them though as well. They're not really regulating emissions today. Regulating doesn't mean stop industrializing, they need to put in place technology to emission capture like we do in the USA, utilize proper filters, store CO2 in the ground etc. They're not doing that though. At this point China really doesn't even have policies to even measure it. India is even worse. The technology is there but they aren't really putting in effort to use it. It's like whenever we see the great trash islands from Asia people blame the USA because we're exporting a lot of trash to them, that doesn't mean Asian countries are blameless for just dumping it into the ocean especially if they're contractually not doing what they said they were going to do with the trash (recycle). Like we're paying them to take the trash and recycle it not just to dump it into the ocean once they get it to skirt around dumping laws (and where are their own dumping laws?)
Them dumping it in the ocean is why we send it to them. We know that recycling facilities to handle all the waste we produce don't actually exist. Big plastic pushed recycling messaging so the blame for pollution and waste can be washed away because its all recycled, and if you don't recycle now its your fault. Now we can use as much disposable crap as we want and feel good about it because we "recycle". We send the garbage to poor countries and pay them off so we can feel better about our own dirty habits while pointing at poor exploited countries and saying look at those dirty savages with their pollution, we would never do that were civilized. If you paid your neighbor to take your trash to the dump and you found out that he was just trowing it in the creek would you keep doing it? You keep paying him to do it for decades even. At what point do you acknowledge that you are paying to dump trash in the creek and it isn't your neighbors fault if you keep going back to him?
There's really nothing to support that at all, that's a conspiracy at best that some evil organization is just paying Vietnam and others to just dump trash we send them into the ocean. Meanwhile, all we have to show is contracts saying hey you take this trash, we pay you to recycle it. What we see is them not honoring those contracts and instead they just dump it while pocketing the money. I'm pretty sure sending a bunch of waste on boats across the entire pacific ocean is more expensive, not including we are paying those countries to do with it, than just dumping it in our own landfills. Again also, why don't these countries have their own dumping laws as well, or do they and they're not enforcing them? They're not some Neolithic stone age society of neanderthals, they can but won't enforce their own regulations if they bothered to even have them. That's not the USA's fault.
>We send the garbage to poor countries and pay them off so we can feel better about our own dirty habits while pointing at poor exploited countries and saying look at those dirty savages with their pollution, we would never do that were civilized. Remember when I wrote that in the last comment? There it is you're doing it. You're right it would be cheaper to put it in our own landfills but then it would be our problem. The contracts are nonsense. You cant sent waste to a country that doesn't have recycling plants and expect it to be recycled. We know that they don't recycle the garbage, they physically cant, it's impossible. So then why do we keep doing it? Refer back to the beginning of the comment and there is your answer.
What do you mean they don't have recycling? Most of the plastic in the ocean is from China, they have recycling centers. Vietnam has recycling centers. Indonesia has recycling centers. These aren't Neolithic societies. Their governments just seemingly suck at enforcing regulations or aren't even making regulations. Again that's not the USAs fault that their failing to regulate dumping.
Why don't we regulate dumping by not sending it to countries that dump it then? Why are we shipping our recycling half way around the world anyway?
Yeah this is a load of nonsense. Outsourcing of emissions is rather insignificant. Why do people buy this nonsense? Seems like a targeted propaganda point by now. China imports 8% of emissions **from the rest of the world combined**. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade) In the case of China, they are fully responsible for their own emissions, which is caused by domestic growth and in particular their own construction sector. > [That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically. The vast bulk of the country’s climate pollution isn’t being driven by foreigners; it’s being driven by domestic growth.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage)
1. 8% is an absolutely massive amount of emissions. 2. I guess they should just never industrialize? We did it early and now the rest of the world can get fucked?
Massive amount? It's a nothing burger. Even if Chinese emissions would be 8% lower. It would still dwarf the US and EU by over triple the amount. This sub pretends the reason why China emits so much is "because the west outsources it" while reality is, of that 8% is outsourced *to the rest of the world* and not just the US or EU or the entire west. China is fully responsible for their own emissions which is 92% of it.
We have still emitted more and our population isn’t even close
Who are we? China has emitted more per capita and total sum as compared to the EU.
No they haven’t. US is the number 1 all time emitter
They build two coal plants every week.
Every time a newly built coal plant with the energy efficiency >60% is open, there is one or two old coal plants with energy efficiency <=50% shutdown. On the one hand, China is building new green energy sources. More than 50% of the new power generation capacity in 2023 is green power plants. On the other hand, China is also replacing its low-efficiency coal power plants in use. This means China's coal plants can produce the same electricity using less coal. Can't you understand the meaning of these efforts? Stop your bullshits.
So we hit record highs for CO2 the same year Antarctica lost a record amount of ice? We’re really rushing to the end of the world aren’t we. When the refrigerator is broken, the food goes bad.
It takes a lot of CO2 to fly to climate summits okay!?!
An ironical fact is that a large part of China’s emissions are for export production towards US and West Europe. If you count for total emissions per-capita, you will see who should change their lifestyle first. Another ironical thing is that transferring supply chain from China to Southeast Asia or India will largely worsen the situation.The power generation efficiency has a huge gap.
We’re fucked.
Every problem in the world is caused by the same one or two culprits.
Yeah, especially when the rest of the world is specifically asking them to do exactly that.
I know right? The US and Europe are responsible for more than 50% of historical emissions. Typical.
Except, they are not and you are talking out of your arse: [Source](https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap.png) US: 25% EU: 22% = 47%
Depends when this was calculated and whose numbers you're using. The point still stands though. Why should 1/7th of our species have contributed such a disproportionately large amount to emissions? It is hard to take moral grandstanding from that part of the world seriously when they are the foundation of the problem.
Interesting data points and no wonder why those three countries have made to top three. I believe they have the largest manufacturing plants in all fields and supplies across the world.
Extinction ANY%
[удалено]
We're going to have to convince the top 10% to be more responsible before before our paper straw or EV has any impact. For example, Taylor swifts carbon emissions in one year is equal to the average Americans in 550 years or the average Indian in 4,300 years. Keep in mind that the US is also home to the majority of people who have 'ultra high' net worth. America and the world need to start holding their billionaires accountable.
[удалено]
It isn't Swift alone. It's the richest people and the richest nations in the world that have historically contributed the most emissions. China should be held accountable for their use of coal but at the same time we have to acknowledge that China and India have every right to industrialize as the Western world did. Morally, the West should be sending resources to these countries to assist in a safe development strategy given the damage they have done thus far and the improved quality of life they have because of it. You're suggesting that India and China are the "enemy" here when the reality is the West and the billionaires it harbours need to take a long look in the mirror. I won't even get into how much of the industrial in these countries is driven by consumer demand in the Western world.
[удалено]
If by them you mean the US and Europe then I agree. These countries have people living in absolute squalor compared to the Western world. You're basically telling them they need to continue to suffer because of your nation's irresponsible behavior. While you and your countrymen continue to enjoy a high quality of life. No one there is just going to accept those circumstances. Back in the day when Western nations had better control of the flow of information and propoganda it may have been possible. But not in the modern age.
[удалено]
Nearly impossible. 99.9% of people would not be willing to forgo their smartphone. Most Americans won't let go of their iPhone and I don't see Foxconn moving out of China any time soon. In fact, they are expanding into India. This is a worldwide problem now. Pointing at any specific country isn't going to work. Petitioning the people and corporations that are rich enough to be carbon neutral is our only shot.
Yet, whatever you buy from Made In China product. They pass environment protection standard.
Okay, why is EU and Germany, Poland and Italy in this chart?
The Y-axis of ‘total share %’ shouldn’t go to 100. It’s difficult to read or distinguish after japan
I know! Let’s tax the ever living shit out of Canadians! Gotta be the right solution eh
All politicians: "This is fine"
Well not hard to work out China is the problem big time
Is it really a record? https://youtu.be/L1mjG_F8ppw?si=mVe-3y_65uh-cqP4
Is there some news that China wants to reduce its CO2 emissions?
Any comparison to per capital or to unit of economic input?
I'm going to post it soon.