Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China(kyso.io)
kyso.io
Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China
https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-co2
69 comments
The US and Canada are reducing their emissions from a much higher per-capita level than China's emissions. You want a participation trophy for that "progress"?
US/Canada is going DOWN, China is going UP.
As I said, "no-one is doing enough"
But at least the developed nations appear to be trying, mildly, so if we absolutely had to give out awards, that would be the criteria. And let's not forget the overall figures are what actually count.
IMHO having a population of 1.3B behooves you to make an extra effort to keep that per-capita figure from sky-rocketing. And maybe also to use your low per-capita figures to berate the still-excessive (per-capita) developed nations to do better - rather than using that difference as an excuse to go full-throttle yourself.
As I said, "no-one is doing enough"
But at least the developed nations appear to be trying, mildly, so if we absolutely had to give out awards, that would be the criteria. And let's not forget the overall figures are what actually count.
IMHO having a population of 1.3B behooves you to make an extra effort to keep that per-capita figure from sky-rocketing. And maybe also to use your low per-capita figures to berate the still-excessive (per-capita) developed nations to do better - rather than using that difference as an excuse to go full-throttle yourself.
down vs down enough. Do we credit the strongest economic nation in the world for improving slightly on emissions or do we strive for it to do even better? That's the point of these visuals.
[deleted]
Criticize none. Per capita CO2 emissions are low in countries where most people are peasant farmers. The average Bangladeshi has a CO2 footprint of 0.5 tons per year. A homeless person in the US has a footprint of 8 tons per year when you account for her share of public infrastructure: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h.... Likewise, countries with fertility rates so low they will cease to exist in relatively short order is good for CO2 emissions. But neither state of affairs is a good outcome.
Carbon reduction is not a solution to climate change. (And we will never achieve meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions precisely for that reason.) The only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture. We’ll either discover that technology before whatever the tipping point is, or we’ll cease to exist as a civilization before we discover the technology.
Carbon reduction is not a solution to climate change. (And we will never achieve meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions precisely for that reason.) The only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture. We’ll either discover that technology before whatever the tipping point is, or we’ll cease to exist as a civilization before we discover the technology.
"Sucking carbon out of the air won’t solve climate change": https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/1744562...
Of course, we should criticize both. And most importantly ourselves.
You say the only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture, but that goes absolutely contrary to the meaning of the word... The American way of life, and the recent Chinese way of life are unsustainable and should, and will stop. Either by choice or by force.
You say the only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture, but that goes absolutely contrary to the meaning of the word... The American way of life, and the recent Chinese way of life are unsustainable and should, and will stop. Either by choice or by force.
Would you rather have us live like farmers in Bangladesh?
Taking into account the nation's population size gives us a more accurate measure of countries' relative contributions to CO2 emissions. The flip between countries like Ireland and China when we go from total to per capita is really interesting.
I doubt the population matters relative to the industries themselves that pollute.
Well, it's important when measuring which nations are most responsible for climate change. So we'll see the list topped by smaller countries with energy-intensive industries such as Qatar, as well as some small Western developed countries like Ireland also performing poorly. It helps provide a clearer picture of the climate change initiatives these governments should be pursuing, which I promise you matters to the industries themselves.
Your facts don't match your premise. It helps us to understand, at an individual level, which individuals are more responsible than other individuals. Individuals don't rule the Earth; nations do. Looking at the data by nation rather than per capita in fact is the data that tells us which nations are most responsible for climate change. Humanity is destroying earth, not individual nations. If the western world cuts its emissions to 0 and the eastern world laughs and doubles its emissions in response we all still burn. The total emissions of humanity are all that matter in the context of climate change.
How do you explain the fact that Western European economies perform so well on a per-capita basis of emissions versus the US and Canada then? I do agree with some of your points on the Western world vs the East & that it will require homogenous action. But we in the West are in a position to lead the way, both in terms of actual implementation and or R&D for more cost-effective use of renewable energy in the future. The rest of the world will follow.
Should we count the European Union as a single entity or as ~30? What about the former Soviet Union?
It also means that poor countries are better on these graphs. Does that mean we should encourage them to stay poor?
Only if you're arguing on the premise that they can only achieve sustainable economic growth in the 21st century by polluting the atmosphere.
Historically, that's a reasonable supposition. The hypothesis that poor countries can achieve economic prosperity without emissions requires proof.
We're in the 21st-century dude. Point to a time where access to foreign aid, other financial assistance, and tech that would enable economic prosperity on renewable energy is as easy as it is today.
Foreign aid and other financial assistance coming from polluting countries is neither zero-emissions, nor sustainable. Nor is it a probable route to prosperity. Look at the nations that have received significant foreign aid over the decades. How prosperous are they?
There are three basic camps among people who study foreign aid, if the goal is to lift countries out of poverty: 1) it doesn't work, and creates dependency instead. 2) it doesn't work, but that's because we need more of it. 3) it doesn't work, but if we try more ways of delivering aid, we can find something that does.
Tech is becoming available - not nearly proven to be sufficient, but progressing.
As I said, it requires proof, because there is no country that has progressed from poverty to prosperity without emissions.
There are three basic camps among people who study foreign aid, if the goal is to lift countries out of poverty: 1) it doesn't work, and creates dependency instead. 2) it doesn't work, but that's because we need more of it. 3) it doesn't work, but if we try more ways of delivering aid, we can find something that does.
Tech is becoming available - not nearly proven to be sufficient, but progressing.
As I said, it requires proof, because there is no country that has progressed from poverty to prosperity without emissions.
IMHO, you should attach the pollution directly with corporations and money. Then you could readily tell which companies and industries are pushing "externalities" on their local populations and "poisoning the well" as it were.
I enjoy that people can downvote without as much as a rebuttal. Cowards! =)
I enjoy that people can downvote without as much as a rebuttal. Cowards! =)
I'm happy to criticise both. The "developed" world shouldn't be buying goods with >neutral carbon footprint, and China shouldn't be selling them.
Well, it's quite hypocritical for us to dictate to China that they shouldn't be selling goods with a >neutral carbon footprint no? A discussion on historical responsibility matters, with rich nations having emitted about 80% of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, which means roughly 80% of the gas heating the atmosphere today came from the developed northern countries. Rich nations are developed enough to reduce our reliance at a faster and more efficient rate.
Sure, it’s incredibly hypocrite. We are hyperhypocrites. The biggest of all.
Can we now move on and do something about climate change? Or are we so gung ho on blameculture that we would rather respectfully stay silent while the newcomers take their sweet time repeating our mistakes, destroying the earth in the process? It would be unfair if they didn’t get their turn at destroying our planet from within, after all.
We are far too slowly realising the magnitude of the issue. There is no time to awkwardly “you first no you first” at the door while the damage is compounding.
We made a mistake. Yes. Let’s not stick our head in the sand just because that’s the polite thing to do, now, please.
(edit: I should have counted to 10 before posting that :) sorry. to clarify: my issue is purely with the focus on hypocrisy. I find it often drives us from a solution rather than towards one. the less we focus on whose goat was originally insulted by whose grandpa, the more readily the village can put aside its strife and work together to stem the rising tide.)
Can we now move on and do something about climate change? Or are we so gung ho on blameculture that we would rather respectfully stay silent while the newcomers take their sweet time repeating our mistakes, destroying the earth in the process? It would be unfair if they didn’t get their turn at destroying our planet from within, after all.
We are far too slowly realising the magnitude of the issue. There is no time to awkwardly “you first no you first” at the door while the damage is compounding.
We made a mistake. Yes. Let’s not stick our head in the sand just because that’s the polite thing to do, now, please.
(edit: I should have counted to 10 before posting that :) sorry. to clarify: my issue is purely with the focus on hypocrisy. I find it often drives us from a solution rather than towards one. the less we focus on whose goat was originally insulted by whose grandpa, the more readily the village can put aside its strife and work together to stem the rising tide.)
Solution is simple. Developed nations should pay more price and do more than other nations. That will take care of "hypocrisy" allegations.
The developing nations would happily sign up if the developed nations made substantial transfer payments (read: trillions of dollars a year) to them in exchange for developing countries reducing their CO2 emissions.
If the developed nations are serious about fighting climate change, that's what they'd be doing.
If the developed nations are serious about fighting climate change, that's what they'd be doing.
We are all to blame. But what good blaming each other is going to do now?
We are at a critical situation now. We should move past blaming the west, the east, the baby boomers ... whatever. And spend our collective brain power in fixing the problem instead. Or, as George Carlin joked, the earth will still be here, it is just us that would be gone
We are at a critical situation now. We should move past blaming the west, the east, the baby boomers ... whatever. And spend our collective brain power in fixing the problem instead. Or, as George Carlin joked, the earth will still be here, it is just us that would be gone
The only reason to blame is that we have this system where people get digital points and use these digital points to buy stuff. Everyone will keep asking, how are we going to have enough digital points to solve this problem!
It would be nice if you could add the carbon credit of each country vs carbon emissions
Good suggestion! Any suggestions for where I can find easily accessible data?
How about we blame each, and every other country, based upon all factors, up to and including the end result.
There is no country (as far as I know) in a carbon neutral or negative state.
Degrees of shit doesn't really help anyone, just gives more reason for finger pointing.
There is no country (as far as I know) in a carbon neutral or negative state.
Degrees of shit doesn't really help anyone, just gives more reason for finger pointing.
First, how many trees per capita are there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree-density/?...
From this, we determine that Canada has 8953 trees per person.
Next, how much carbon does each tree sink:
https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h...
48 pounds of carbon per tree, per year.
Which means that, in Canada, 214.8 tons of carbon are sequestered annually per person.
Canada's people generate 15.7 tons of carbon per person (or, as the linked article puts it, about 4 times the global average).
http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php
So, Canada is STILL "carbon negative" -- in a major way.
So, there is one example. In North America, even.
FredW
edit: added "per person" to usage, change But to So in conclusion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree-density/?...
From this, we determine that Canada has 8953 trees per person.
Next, how much carbon does each tree sink:
https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h...
48 pounds of carbon per tree, per year.
Which means that, in Canada, 214.8 tons of carbon are sequestered annually per person.
Canada's people generate 15.7 tons of carbon per person (or, as the linked article puts it, about 4 times the global average).
http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php
So, Canada is STILL "carbon negative" -- in a major way.
So, there is one example. In North America, even.
FredW
edit: added "per person" to usage, change But to So in conclusion.
[deleted]
To reduce per capita CO2 emissions, breed like rabbits and ignore CO2 emissions.
Wasn't there a time of massive growth in USA too? Surely USA wouldn't be able to achieve supremacy without relying at some point on tech that emits huge amount of CO2?
I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last ~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead statistics are used that completely disregard population size, especially since it's so heavily advocated:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we...
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-ch...
https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-f...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we...
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-ch...
https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-f...
1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects
2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.
2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.
#1 is my point, and as for #2, there aren't many newspapers calling for reduced immigration to reduce CO2 emissions, are there? Have fewer children, but don't dare consider reducing immigration.
I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?
> I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?
No, I mean, not unless you are talking about the kind of environmental groups that exist only in the propaganda of anti-environmental groups, that also campaign against economic development per se, since immigration to the US is isomorphic to economic development in this regard.
No, I mean, not unless you are talking about the kind of environmental groups that exist only in the propaganda of anti-environmental groups, that also campaign against economic development per se, since immigration to the US is isomorphic to economic development in this regard.
...or exist in history, but their position changed because it was politically unpopular.
Sierra Club 1989: "Immigration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States...since it is the fact of increasing numbers that affects population growth and ultimately, the quality of the environment."
Through the 90s and 2000s, there have been heated (and close) votes on immigration policy.
https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat...
Sierra Club 1989: "Immigration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States...since it is the fact of increasing numbers that affects population growth and ultimately, the quality of the environment."
Through the 90s and 2000s, there have been heated (and close) votes on immigration policy.
https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat...
If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable.
One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.
One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.
Not remotely true -- the climate would still change. The question is "Is climate change a problem?".
Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster:
https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was...
Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming.
All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem.
What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive.
Can you clarify a bit?
Thanks in advance FredW
Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster:
https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was...
Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming.
All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem.
What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive.
Can you clarify a bit?
Thanks in advance FredW
You'd think so, but I fear many of these groups are more interested in political agendas than scientific or practical change.
What I don't fully understand about calculating carbon footprints is if I buy an iPhone made in China, does that add to the carbon footprint per capita of my country or to China's carbon footprint per capita? If the second were to be true, we would be shaming 'developing' countries for fuelling our own consumption levels.
I believe it is indeed the second - it would add to China's carbon footprint - & I completely agree with you. This article addresses the issue nicely: https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-of-chinas-carbon-dioxid... countries that import more and manufacture less (the West) experience falling emissions, while that of the developing, manufacturing economies increases
Very interesting post but it is unreadable on mobile. Text jumps around (no dimensions for images?) and something weird happens with the scroll. Shame.
Calling countries' total emissions "meaningless" because they're not measured per capita is ignoring the reality of the problem. Qatar—the worst per-capita offender—could go carbon-neutral tomorrow and climate change would march on unaffected, because China is still responsible for the lion's share of the CO₂ emissions.
China's emissions (and India's, for that matter) are only low per capita because of how many people they have living in relative poverty. I wouldn't say this is a statistic to be proud of.
China's emissions (and India's, for that matter) are only low per capita because of how many people they have living in relative poverty. I wouldn't say this is a statistic to be proud of.
The reality of the problem is that Western consumption is off the charts, and if the entire world rises to our level we're screwed. The answer for that is not to condemn China and India to remain in poverty; it's to drastically reduce our own consumption to set the standard, and only then put pressure on others to reduce.
While we are emitting more per capita than China, if we tell them to cut their emissions they will - and should - tell us to piss off.
While we are emitting more per capita than China, if we tell them to cut their emissions they will - and should - tell us to piss off.
Also, a large amount of china’s emissions are caused by the manufacture of goods for western countries.
True. This is a problem that needs to be looked at globally. We all live or die together, if we can't solve it. Nature doesn't care about the borders of nation states.
[deleted]
China and India could go carbon-neutral tomorrow and climate change would still march on, albeit a bit more slowly. Focusing on any individual country is foolishness.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is simply true. To solve this problem will require a GLOBAL effort. Notice China didn't pull out of the Paris agreement. The sad truth is every country has been failing to meet its agreements so far and some are hostile to the problem like the USA (who has a major political party denying the problem exists).
While the US does have a problem with climate change denial that goes right to the top, it's making a significant effort despite this, as seen in the per-capita graph on OP's post.
Though another point made is that USA has been exporting it's carbon emissions to China. In other words, they are an extension of US consumption since so much of what we buy here, is made there. It's entirely possible our decrease is correlated to their increase.
If China and India went carbon-neutral tomorrow, we wouldn't be racing against the clock to solve the problem. A gradual and organic move to green energy would be enough to avert climate change.
Cutting one third of emissions would be enough to do that?
A better measure would be carbon per dollar of GDP, since what we really need to do is create more wealth with less carbon. China fares poorly, and the US is in the middle of the pack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...
Per capital emissions is valuable - and don’t we also need to look at emissions per unit of economic output? (Ie carbon per dollar of GDP?)
Emissions means something is being produced, which is why we find them useful despite externalities. There is a balance between human quality of life and preventing climate change.
Emissions means something is being produced, which is why we find them useful despite externalities. There is a balance between human quality of life and preventing climate change.
Great suggestion - I just forked the original post and created a new map based on emissions per unit of economic output: https://kyso.io/KyleOS/co2-per-unit-output it flips the map for North America and a lot of SE Asian countries
CO2 isn't the only problem! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...
Very good point - I actually only posted on this topic the other day: https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-meat-consumption
I'm wondering if there is a way to plot the impact this consumption has on the environment - maybe I can apply some form of multiplier to each country's meat consumption. Any suggestions? Would love to update that post with an environmental twist.
I'm wondering if there is a way to plot the impact this consumption has on the environment - maybe I can apply some form of multiplier to each country's meat consumption. Any suggestions? Would love to update that post with an environmental twist.
[deleted]
Looking at the 10 worst emitters and seeing Curaçao as number 2 highlights some of the difficulty of finger-pointing this way. There's an oil refinery on this tiny island. The oil is not only consumed there but it's shipped elsewhere. So the people who benefit are not the ones that create the emissions.
The world collectively has the materials and technologies and labour potential to get 100% of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. The barriers to do so are artificial. We are limited by the systemic, not the physical. So what can be done systemically to push us in that direction more quickly?
The world collectively has the materials and technologies and labour potential to get 100% of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. The barriers to do so are artificial. We are limited by the systemic, not the physical. So what can be done systemically to push us in that direction more quickly?
It feels like some tout the "per capita" emissions to encourage their political agenda instead dealing with climate change. Maybe same reason why some dismiss geoengineering outright with no consideration or discussion.
No-one is doing enough, but at least the developed-nation figures are going down, whereas China is going through the roof.
You can't argue with the impact of 1.3B people, the overall emissions figure really is what actually counts.