Absolutely perfect reply. Thank you.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
Oh it will go up, but I bet you 10 quid that will not surpass US per capita
Last edited:
per capita it matters. You can't ask chinese people to cut half their emissions while US can enjoy to do feck all contaminating much more per person just because a border enclose a total of emissions. How absurd is what you are asking!
Thanks please, how stupid is the argument than absolute terms is what it matters and not per capita
I never said it would.
But that was my hole point. You can't ask China to reduce their per capita if you don't ask first US and others to go down. Asking now China when is below europe is asking to cripple their development and this they wont do it and it would not be fair when there are others than they are doing it worse
The argument of absolute number of CO2 emissions based on border limitations is absurd
Cumulative per-capita
Cumulative total
I think people (seemingly mostly in the countries that are high up on this list) do not grasp that those historic emissions aren't some random fact - they are what allowed the countries to become rich in the first place. Almost every percent of economic growth for 300 years has been literally powered by the burning of fossil fuels. There is no viable way for rich countries to have become rich without emitting tons of carbon. If they expect other countries to stop, they should stop themselves, and understand that distributing their accumulated bounty of carbon-based wealth is the only way other countries can spend the resources to stop as well.
Cumulative total
I think people (seemingly mostly in the countries that are high up on this list) do not grasp that those historic emissions aren't some random fact - they are what allowed the countries to become rich in the first place. Almost every percent of economic growth for 300 years has been literally powered by the burning of fossil fuels. There is no viable way for rich countries to have become rich without emitting tons of carbon. If they expect other countries to stop, they should stop themselves, and understand that distributing their accumulated bounty of carbon-based wealth is the only way other countries can spend the resources to stop as well.
I never asked China to do that. I made the point that their CO2 emissions will rise because of their growth which they are well entitled to.
Then we are in the same page
Thanks, I had been looking for that historical emissions graph. I think the point about having gotten rich off the back of unbridled industrial growth can't be emphasized enough. Western European and North American countries are very selfish that way - and pedants at the same time, happy to tell others that they can't do what they themselves did for about two centuries!Cumulative per-capita
Cumulative total
I think people (seemingly mostly in the countries that are high up on this list) do not grasp that those historic emissions aren't some random fact - they are what allowed the countries to become rich in the first place. Almost every percent of economic growth for 300 years has been literally powered by the burning of fossil fuels. There is no viable way for rich countries to have become rich without emitting tons of carbon. If they expect other countries to stop, they should stop themselves, and understand that distributing their accumulated bounty of carbon-based wealth is the only way other countries can spend the resources to stop as well.
(A similar point can be said about retributions for colonization and other forms of imperialism, but that's for another thread.)
Cumulative per-capita
Cumulative total
I think people (seemingly mostly in the countries that are high up on this list) do not grasp that those historic emissions aren't some random fact - they are what allowed the countries to become rich in the first place. Almost every percent of economic growth for 300 years has been literally powered by the burning of fossil fuels. There is no viable way for rich countries to have become rich without emitting tons of carbon. If they expect other countries to stop, they should stop themselves, and understand that distributing their accumulated bounty of carbon-based wealth is the only way other countries can spend the resources to stop as well.
Hey cut us some slack, it's fecking freezing here for half the bloody year!
i will take down that post if trudeau gives me a 100$
Because this is what matters to the worlds attempt to keep the temperature rise down. China can lead the way and others will have to follow, or it can keep on saying "our interests come first because we have less per capita", its their choice, but its the worlds future that is at stake. Unless China moves then the world is going to 'hell in the handcart'.... absolutely!
What matters is total emissions across the world, the rest is divying up responsibility. I've no idea why you've still got it in your head that only China can lead the way.
Explain to me why the country with the worst per capita record can't lead the way for everyone to follow?
The worst offending countries per capita grouped would surpass China easily. Those countries are far more to blame and can cut their emissions far easier yet you're telling me China has the ultimate responsibility.
I mean you're not even talking joe bloggs understanding per capita here, your claim seems to be that international government's are too dumb to understand that per capita matters.
Last edited:
Yes, its emissions across the world, but because China is the biggest C02 emitter.... its not rocket science, its absolute totals that count.
China does not have to use coal-fired power stations to generate the power it needs, there are alternatives, if necessary the Chinese could put a premium on these methods and demand the rest of the world conforms or provides the technology, either way they have to stop building new coal fired plants and close down those that are the worst polluters, otherwise we are all doomed!...doomed ay tell yer!
No China does need them otherwise it wouldn't have enough energy. China is making the largest moves in renewables and has for some time as evidenced by it's energy mix (more renewables than the UK) but it takes time.
The big difference is they don't have a huge supply of natural gas right now and well if they started importing more as they plan to then good luck with energy prices here.
Let's go with your logic though, China decides to import huge quantities of natural gas from Europe creating a shortage for the UK and most of Europe. Job done for China right that's a huge emission cut right there, now where will Europe turn to for its energy?
This is why it's stupid to finger point at one country rather than looking at the context behind the absolutes.
Sorry your logic does not make sense, the finger is pointing at one country that does hold the worlds fate in its hands, that is why everyone is looking to China to cut its emissions, but if it doesn't do it now and continues with its planned coal-powered power station developments then what the rest of the world does. or does not do, won't mean anything in terms of saving the planet from increased temperatures.
The 'emission cutting' ball is in China's court, what its potential to do in cutting emissions dwarfs the rest of the worlds almost combined capability and hence the whole world is depending upon what China is prepared to do, but at the moment it appears they don't want to participate in a global solution.
Insulting another member
Don´t take it wrong. I don´t do it as an insult but you are not intelligent. Is very simple what everyone is trying to tell you
Sad times for our children’s children. I think the issue is humans can’t grasp scale at this level - we know the danger but most just get on with their lives and those lives are filled with external pressures to spend money on things which are pretty much all terrible for the environment (holidays, designer clothing, nice cars, luxury items, bigger houses). Until there’s a fundamental change in how we live, we’re fecked.
I don't think it is exclusively in China's court, but it would definitely be huge if China decided to act decisively on its emissions. My overall sense is that a lot of countries worldwide, especially leading economies, are kinda waiting who moves first - cause whoever does will initially pay for it economically, and those who move later might benefit from that. It's an insanely stupid game to play with the fate of humanity in the balance, but then what do you expect!
In any case, I think a key country starting to really move on this (and I mean really move on this; not vague targets for 2050 without concrete short-term action) would have a domino effect. And China is probably the biggest key country - especially if they would make climate-related conditions for its loans part of such plans. But I think global influence is almost tied between China and the US on this, and that the effect would be quite similar if the US would seriously get things going.
Mmm i doubt that is the case, the EU emits 6.4 tones per capita. Almost 1/3 than US and is perfectly competitive. Actually, the more efficient you are with energy, more likely you are to be competitive. Also, investing in renewables will bring you more qualified and better jobs than oil and coal. So i am not that sure that is a correct argument
All very true.
It is a natural human trait to take the easy way out.
I would say that most of us are quite concerned about the awful effects of man made climate change.
But at the same time find actually doing anything tangible about it too daunting.
And so, we will just tinker around the edges, hoping that it will all just go away, so we can get on with doing what we have been doing.
I seriously doubt that China is doing this out of any morale obligations.
It is developing its green technologies because it makes good business sense. So it can lead the world and sell the majority of solar panels and EV batteries and become even more powerful.
But if that helps reduce the impact of CC, then that is a good thing.
I don't take it wrong, but telling someone they are not intelligent because they hold a different view to you is bordering on insult.
However, I am 'too long in the tooth' (old) to get upset by insults, especially as a Man United fan I've heard almost every insult there is about intelligence.
I appreciate you are saying what you believe, just as I am doing, so lets leave the insults to one side. Incidentally, not everyone is telling me I don't understand some agree with me, if its reluctantly.
I'm afraid whether you like it or not, China holds the key to the 'time line' on cutting emissions, if it sticks to its current plans then we are heading for disaster, that is unless China knows something the rest of the world doesn't?
I agree this is the key issue.
If present economic signs are borne out (emission 'cuts' excluded) then in (possibly less than) fifty years China is likely to be the worlds leading economy, but has it any greater chance of surviving the ravages of climate change than anyone else?
Maybe it does, or believes it does, in which case my view that the world is 'going to hell in a hand cart', is still more likely to occur than not to occur and then with the rest of the world in turmoil, what will China do?
The Chinese government whatever its record on human rights etc. has in a relatively short space of time lifted something like 100m of its citizens out of abject poverty and is committed to doing more. I think everyone around the world recognises that fact, maybe are even willing to acknowledge that the Chinese economy drive can lead to improvements all around the world. However if China wants to be recognised as a world leader, then it has to become the worlds leader on climate change, otherwise there is unlikely to be a world (not as we know Jim!!).
Then the Star trek fantasy of searching the universe for other planets that can support life will have to become reality for future generations.
Yep - I live in a suburban middle class area and no joke, I'd estimate 1 in 8 have a range rover and if not it's a large diesel or petrol SUV...most have 2 cars and I don't think any have solar, heat pumps, EVs etc. although all could afford it with ease. Until people stop caring about brands and how they are perceived (or more accurately until the things that influence them change) the richer countries are just as bad, if not worse as we have more ability to choose, as developing countries etc.
That's not the sort of action that's really needed though. Current emission levels are far too high and a focus on greening tech is a long-term plan. Decisive action would mean closing coal plants, greening the car park now, greening or stopping the most polluting industry, and so on - now (or within the next few years), and that's definitely costly.
I mean, if replacing coal and oil by renewables were really so profitable in the short term, it would be happening much more, and conservatives wouldn't be so opposed to it. In Canada for example: decisive action would lead to immediate caps, reductions, or even the closure of the tar sands - and that would hit Canada very hard economically. And Canada even has potentially a lot of access to renewable resources. Any benefits from a greening of the economy would follow much later, and there would be an economic dip in between.
That's why everyone wants to go gradual and sets goals for 2030 or 2050. But those goals exist already, it's not what I'm talking about here. No one is decisively moving now because of the economic cost, and I do think it would help if a major jurisdiction set the example. That's been happening with the 2030/2050 goals (you can't now as a nation not have that anymore; see Australia now), and it would happen again with more immediate action.
I simply don't understand the desire for bigger and significantly heavier vehicles. No doubt to try and impress the neighbours. Which is just plain dumb.
This type of behaviour is so depressing in what is supposed to be a much more enlightened time.
And every day, when I am walking, I see cars stopped by the roadside with their engines running. In the summer to keep them cooler and the opposite in the winter.
Stupid selfish ignorant individuals. Most overweight and too lazy to actually walk.
I wouldn't go as far as saying you're unintelligent, but I don't see why you aren't grasping the simple per-capita facts.
Let's say there are two parties celebrating their birthdays in a restaurant. Party A is a two people, a couple, and between them they have two pizzas, two sides and a bottle of wine. Party B is eight people, and between them they have four pizzas, four sides and two bottles of wine.
Now who are the biggest eaters? It's clearly party A, who between them eat twice as much per person as party B. However, in your logic it's the opposite way around, and Party A should be able to carry on consuming as much as they're accustomed to until Party B consume less than half the amount they are currently consuming. All the while crying about how Party B need to clean up their act!
Now can you see how nonsensical your approach is?
Last edited:
It's because once you're in one it's super-comfortable and gives you a feeling of invincibility. Unfortunately it's subject to the principle of escalation, so people go for bigger and bigger to compete with everyone else on the road.
I don't understand how governments can come up with big catch-all goals like an end to all petrol cars by 2035 or whenever, but have no much more achievable interim goals such as a ban on the manufacture of cars that do less than xMPG. Add an extra tax to anyone running those vehicles and we'd soon see them shifted off the roads and onto the scrapheap.
I asked my boss about this once and his only reason was that now everyone else has a big car, he feels his kids are slightly safer if there's a crash...it's like an arms race. I guess it's also indicative of the problem where it's hard not to think selfishly. They need a lot more marketing to change people's perception of transport, like they did with smoking and look how few people (comparatively) now smoke.
Exactly, this is literally all it would take. Make it too expensive for people and they'll soon lose interest in their 'dream' car. Combine that with influential people being incentivised to promote EV's and consumer trends will shift rapidly.
Agree with you both. Very perceptive.
And as you rightly say, it would be really easy for the government to change the road tax.
In fact, a few years ago, they did almost the opposite and any vehicle with emissions below 100mg/km paid no road tax. And I was stupid enough to buy one. Only for them to change yet again and go back to the minimum £140 figure.
Decisions made on the hoof by a bunch of halfwits.
I was just hearing stats that while goods vehicles on UK roads have remained at a steady number over the last 30-40 years, car ownership has doubled to about 30m. On top of this the average passenger car is about 200kg heavier than it was 30 years ago, requiring an extra 200m litres of fuel per year. 40 years ago only 1% of cars had an engine that was over 200 horsepower. Now it's 60%.
Transport emissions make up the largest element of the UK's carbon emissions at about 27%. There's so much that can be done, but most of it should have been done years ago, and would have had no impact on the average driver. Now it's going to be incredibly difficult to row it back.
Governments are just so unwillingly to do anything that would seem impopular. Taxing cars by interior volume and weight (while ensuring safety requirements aren't being evaded by using more light-weight materials) would be a great way to disincentive this race to be bigger, and help the climate. But instead we only hear talk about green cars - and I'm sure we'll see lots of huge electric SUVs before too long, with their stupid size negating a nice part of the emissions gain.
Yep, comes back to politics and the problem of having short election terms compared to how long it takes to really see changes in important areas. If you do something that upsets enough people, you lose the next election. The solution could be some kind of carve out/diminishment of government responsibilities with key areas for climate targets being taken over by some kind of expert group. Ban any politician from involvement and have it headed by qualified people with a meaningful budget & then political parties are protected from blame because it's not 'them' making the difficult decisions.
This is an inevitable but a lesser evil for me. I think we're actually doing pretty well on converting to renewable energy (last year I think the UK breached 40% of total energy from renewables) so if that keeps ramping up and we take more and more fossil fuel fuelled cars off the road we will be in a decent place (obviously miles from where we could be but has to be step by step).
I believe that's the way forward with everything of importance. Take education away from them too.
The only way you can resolve the issue of self interest is for those less impacted economically to fund those who would take a hit. That won't happen for obvious reasons.
I think most governments are just hoping something like fusion solves the energy crisis.
What does annoy me is there's not enough opposition parties going hard on the issue. The only real change will come when the voters demand it but it's too radical for most establishment parties so they lean towards a centrist approach that won't solve the biggest issue.
We're doing okay in the UK (although we're dependent on importing natural gas to fill the coal gap) but we should be funding renewable technology projects across the globe rather than leaving it to the market.
I think most governments are just hoping something like fusion solves the energy crisis.
What does annoy me is there's not enough opposition parties going hard on the issue. The only real change will come when the voters demand it but it's too radical for most establishment parties so they lean towards a centrist approach that won't solve the biggest issue.
We're doing okay in the UK (although we're dependent on importing natural gas to fill the coal gap) but we should be funding renewable technology projects across the globe rather than leaving it to the market.
True, and here in Canada some provinces are also doing really well on renewables. (Topped by Quebec at about 100% due to their huge dams in the north.) That's not the case everywhere though, and I would fear that some places will transition to renewables well after they have transitioned to electric cars.
But first things first, I guess. (I.e., can't deal with everything simultaneously, let's start by switching to non-gas cars.)
Facts are not point of view. Your opinion/believes are not equal to facts (that are not mine, is what it is). If you would believe that the earth is flat, your believe would not equal to the facts. And over and over they had been trying to tell you that co2 per capita is the measurement because is what a person consumes and not absolute that is just a community as a whole based in an arbitrary border when you blame the community as a whole you blame them for they size in numbers in this case. Not on what they are doing ok or not. Because china it doesnt matter what they do. They have so much population than it will be way above in total even if they are 4 times more efficient and youll be there still wtith the same non intelligent argument
My point stands and i lost again time to explain an argument that is equivalent to explain why the earth is round to a flat earther. Wont happen again. I guess i am not intelligent either after all falling again for it
Well, if you mean cutting clean in the next 3-4 years you are right. No one will do that for the reasons that you exposed. If we are speaking by 2030, i believe major changes will happen by then on the developed countries. Spearheaded by europe. But as you said it is already too late. I have no hope for humanity