Its not nonsensical, its fact, China has to lead the way in cutting emissions, simples..... per capita is nothing to do with it
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
I am expressing a fact, if China does not reduce its emissions the world will suffer!
You are basing your view that reducing emissions are something to do with per capita, then calling that a fact.
Of course per capita is relevant. Nobody is denying that China needs to cut down massively on emissions, just as we all do. But a country with 1.5 billion people should of course have more emissions in total than a country of 350 million people. That isn't rocket science.
China needs to cut down on emissions otherwise the world will suffer
China will always have more emissions than the USA/UK/France/insert other western country here, due to the mismatch in populations
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
@Maticmaker is uncomfortable with the fact that his generation is most responsible for this catastrophe, and his country is among the most responsible despite its small size. The per capita figures and cumulative figures make that pretty clear. He's just looking for someone else to point the finger at so he doesn't have to reckon with that too deeply. It's pretty normal for boomers in the Western world. No point in debating about it because it's not a debate about facts or logic, it's not an attempt to understand the reality of the situation and its implications, it's just an emotional escape route. The deeper the conversation goes, the greater the escape and the further from reality we move.
In absolute terms China is producing more CO2 emissions than almost everybody else put together, they are still building coal-powered plants, and will continue to do so.
I think you will find a lot of people on here are denying that China is the major polluter in terms of CO2.
If China was to take the lead on Climate change, everyone else would follow, but they didn't even turn up at COP26.
Yeah. And in absolute terms, the whole rest of the world combined produces more than China. Let's forget the fact that the population of the whole of the rest of the world is 4 times greater, than China, they are the real villains here.
Again, the point that everybody is explaining you is passing you at 1 km over your head. I insist. It was not an insult
That's a bit of an overstatement, they are at about 25% of global emissions.
but...facts?
I'm not going to join you in this game of bashing @Maticmaker.
Also, 25% exceeds China's share of the world's population, which is around 18%. Plus it's true that China has enormous clout in this - same as or more than the US (and them both definitely much more than the EU). In any case, I liked @africanspur's post above, about this not having to be an either/or discussion.
Problem solved
Not pretend you to join. No worries
But anyway, blaming china on absolute numbers, that those abolute numbers, a decent chunk is for western consumption do to supply chain and final goods consumed by the west and asking china to cripple their development when the west enjoyed that developement is quite hypocritical.
The west is who has to lead the change because is the one that caused it in the first place and they are the ones per capita directly and indirectly more responsible still
There are a lot of double standards being applied here, CO2 emissions occur naturally as well as man made.
Its true some of the western countries did produce more via the industrial revolution and such like; however the double standard that applies is that at that time very few if any understood the impact such emissions would have on the climate.
Today however China knows exactly what damage its doing, no 'age of innocence' can extend to present day actions.
China produces more than anyone else and has to take the lead, it can demand what it wants from the rest of the world for doing so, but it has to take the lead on Climate Change as its output is the highest... otherwise it is the 'hell in a hand' cart scenario.... for everybody.
It's still true that 'the west' got wealthy off of the industrial revolution and their limitless emissions. From a fairness point of view, it would be easy to argue that 'the west' should first cut significantly in its emissions and accept the economic damage - and then we'll see what else is needed.
It doesn't work exactly like that, but it's a reasonable argument.
Damn, this kind of thing is infuriating. Imagine if countries spent the money they spend on subsidising the fossil fuel industry on developing green energy. Maybe we wouldn't be in that mess. That's our money they are spending to make our problems worse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799
The only way to do anything about it is enforcement . Most people still don`t care and feel they are doing their bit by recycling their rubbish but they have no intention to make changes to the lifestyle that they have worked hard to achieve.
I kind of think people need to get over finding someone to blame and just get on with cutting their own emissions. It doesn't matter who goes first.
Man made climate change is all about cause and effect.
Until you deal with the cause, you will not change the effect.
You and me can certainly cut down our emissions. That is a good thing.
But quite frankly, that will only have a second order effect.
Because you and me cannot stop nation states burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow.
So it really does matter who goes first.
Are you under the impression our emissions were all caused by the mill owners or something?
More than half of the worlds emissions are from 1990 onwards and we've known about climate change for way longer than that. Most of the Western countries were still dramatically increasing their fossil fuels up until very recently, including coal.
I'm fascinated by what's behind this will of yours to blame some distant foreigners at all cost.
I'm not sure that's true, take the US for instance consumer habits have a very strong correlation to their emissions. Whether that's domestic product preferences or imports.
That is true about consumers.
But my point is that they/we don't control the methods of energy production.
But I do accept that we can drive governments to supply green energy.
So in retrospect, we all have to do much much more than we, the collective we are doing now.
So you are right.
What if the compulsory sterilisation/1-child policy was applied to the global top 10% (which many caf posters will be a part of, and I will be in a few years if I get the job I want)?
Their emissions easily dwarf the bottom 50% - not only will it mean equivalent/better emission reductions, it will also violate the human rights of much fewer people.
Their emissions easily dwarf the bottom 50% - not only will it mean equivalent/better emission reductions, it will also violate the human rights of much fewer people.
I meant more nation v nation than individual vs nation. No country in a position of influence is in a position to lecture anyone on environment. All of them without exception need to drastically cut emissions. Get started and be ambitious, dont settle on the minimum that everyone can agree on and fall short of meeting them limited standards.
The sooner someone starts the longer the runway to encourage the hold outs to follow suit.
Where on earth did you get that stat from? In 2021, the next 4 countries (USA, India, Russia and Japan) produced more in total than China did so how are they producing more than everyone else put together?
For reference, if we looked at if China produced Co2 emissions at the same per capita rate as those countries. If the USA, it would more than double their total CO2 emissions. For Russia, it would increase by about 67%. Japan 33%. Germany (number 6) by 25%. South Korea about double.
I don't think literally anyone on here would deny that China is the number one polluter in terms of total emissions. I think are just presenting a little more nuance to that debate.
Since when does the rest of the rest of the world follow what China does? Why would the USA, Japan, Germany and South Korea suddenly get a lot more serious if China did? And why does it need other countries to take the lead, for us to take action in the West?
Completely understandable and completely agree.
Oh, I agree. Let's cut the crap and get on with it. But it appears country leaders don't think much like that. And while you and I can't make them do what think is super obvious, we might as well discuss this sort of thing - cause it does seem to feature into the arguments of politicians. (If that's not just empty rhetoric to hide their lack of interest.)
No of course not, the industrial revolution was the beginning, but just like the links between lung cancer and smoking even when scientists were making these claims people tended to disbelieve or at least doubt (encouraged by the tobacco industry!) for years and even now people still smoke cigarettes. The same with emissions its not so long ago there were still claims that this was a natural occurrence and the climate would right itself. However we all now know differently. If China led the way others would follow (where, for example, they would not follow the US on such matters).
This is not a blame game, its an absolute in terms of survival, China has to take the lead on significant cuts, survival depends on it.
Where China leads the world will have to follow.
On this issue China is the world leader on emissions so has to be the world leader on their reduction, its an 'idea whose time has come' and the rest of the world cannot hold out against it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59269886
I feel like i read this exact headline 10-15 years ago.
Last edited:
The world leader on emissions cuts has to be the US quite clearly as they produce the most emissions per capita and are seemingly doing the least to reduce subsidies on oil and gas. The fairest way would be to work out an emissions cut per capita worldwide and calculate the Co2 to achieve that based on the population size.
China need to improve quickly, but are you expecting a country with 4x the population of the US to have the same Co2 output as them or move first? If so, can't you see how that's ridiculous?
Last edited:
nice to see the per capita thing I started a week ago is still going
I haven’t followed this much, and haven’t followed the climate change debate for several years as I find the whole thing incredibly depressing now. I just can’t for the life of me see enough being done to mitigate it. We’ve been at “red alert” for 15 or 20 years, we’ve had however many predictions and models forecasting end of the world type scenarios and nothing has been done. We’ve known for a long time this was a big problem and buried our heads in the sand, kicked the can down the road and had the odd meaningless summit in between as a token “we’re doing our bit”. Environmental initiatives only happen when there’s economic reasons to do so, nothing happens at that level out of sheer altruism.
Preventing disaster requires far too much unity and socioeconomic changes. Even if by some miracle a landmark agreement is reached, all it takes is another Donald Trump coming into power to bring it all down. I’d loved to be proved wrong, however.
Preventing disaster requires far too much unity and socioeconomic changes. Even if by some miracle a landmark agreement is reached, all it takes is another Donald Trump coming into power to bring it all down. I’d loved to be proved wrong, however.
No, not same emissions, but they are the biggest emitter they need to take the lead if the world is to survive. Per capita is nothing to do with cutting harmful emissions, everybody has to cut back on absolutes. The Chinese are still planning to build even more coal-fired plants, despite knowing the damage they cause.
To power factories that produce things for European and American consumers?
We all need to do something collectively and total emissions need to come down forget about 1 country or per capita .... cut the national and individual politics and work together... but yeah I have little expectatuon that we will.do that and 1.5 to 2 degrees in the next 20 years seems pretty nailed on to happen
Then they will have to tell these consumers 'time's up' we no longer do this, at least until we can use green energy. Such a response would bring the attention of everyone on to what is needed.
However as you say, it is not likely to happen and so "the world going to hell in a hand cart" scenario is very much still on the cards.
To grow their economy.
This is not how the real world works. The chinese are finally being lifted out of poverty and they are rightly not giving it up to meet net zero.
Last edited:
The actual “real” world is dying and will die and none of these man made ideas or imaginary constructs we’ve created will matter.
Our best hope. And all the investment, should be in tech that will mitigate the problem.
China will come up with the tech and build new factories and power stations to make it for us.