• JohnEdwa@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because China is a country with the third largest land mass with the second largest population in the world. But per capita, they produce half of what an American does.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both need to significantly reduce their emissions. We do not need deflection for either.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      2 things about this; the planet don’t care about per capita numbers - 52.2 is gonna drop that population real quick. I doubt that would even slow their ruling class down

      Second fuck is America a bad comparision. Those 2 will race to a scorched earth quicker than a nuclear war ever could

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Per capita numbers are very, very important: they tell us where the low hanging fruit are. The people emitting the most per capita should be pressured most heavily to reduce emissions, because they’re the ones who are polluting most unnecessarily.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except we’re also setting high temperature records in Canada.

            Even with that, it still pisses me off when I hear my fellow Canadians (mostly from a certain province that exports fossil fuel) saying “why should Canada do anything when these other countries are worse”.

            • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, doesn’t change that we need a ton of heat in the winter. An average 1.5 C change doesn’t matter much when we have to heat from -20 to +20, a delta T of 40 degs.

        • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In a perfect democracy perhaps, but in the world we live in the power is in the hands of very few. Id also argue there’s too much noise using it to represent unnecessary pollution, as a single person running a generator in antartica would be horrible per capita - but quite so necessary. Larger populations have the benefit of larger systems, thereby operating more efficiently. A country could also reasonably just triple their population to increase their pollution “quota”, cause money - and a system that can be that manipulated isnt that reasonable of a system.

          Looking directly at pollution on the other hand is more like looking directly at what causes the problem (climate change), and minimizing centralized sources of it would have a much more noticable effect. Especially those that have a greater population to landmass ratio (thereby having less untouched human areas) and so less so a positive effect on greenhouse gas removal.

          • cyd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let’s frame this in inequality terms. Suppose (not the real numbers) we have the top 1% emitting half the greenhouse gases to fuel their lifestyles, and the bottom 99% emit the other half. You’re saying we should focus equally on the two groups when looking for emissions reductions???

      • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly, the world doesn’t care. The average co2 footprint per person globally is around 5 tonnes and as we’ve noticed, that is way too much for our planet to handle, one estimate is that we would need to drop that to below 2.5 tonnes.
        China at 7.5 per person is a lot closer to than Canada at 18, Australia at 17, US at around 15 or Russia at 12. EU on average is close at around 8 I believe.

        • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No way canada’s that bad? Thats a perfect example then cause were mostly hydroelectric, just empty as ass (an example I used to the other person is imagine the per capita numbers of an artic exploration group, probably horrible but we could never visit the artic again and still be boiling in superpowers pollution)

            • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whoops shoulda been a little more specific, I meant because most gas based generators arent nearly efficient as coal based plants (which aint as efficient as nuclear…) in terms of emissions to energy. That added on the fact that they’re probably not designed for sub zero temps and you end up with a horrible per capita (probably, I don’t have any actual numbers to back this up).

              Ngl im not too great at expressing my whole thought processmao

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh we’re pretty bad. Cold winters we need lots of heat. Big houses. Mostly car dependent inner infrastructure. Lots of distance for goods to travel and we still use trucks for it. BC and Quebec may have lots of hydro but that’s not the rest of the country.

      • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not ignoring the problem, you are complaining that we are running out of food because that group of a billion people are eating too much when you have over twice as much food on your own plates, and saying the solution is that they should be forced to eat even less.

        • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is ignoring the problem. I’m complaining about the massive amounts of carbon China is pumping out and getting worse every year and you’re making excuses.

          Classic tragedy of the commons. It’s no one fault. Everyone is doing it. Blah blah blah. None of this is lowering GHGs.

          • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And if we split China into three smaller countries with a population of 450 million each, then those would only produce 3/4th the Co2 of USA each putting USA in the number one spot and solve climate change? China currently pollutes the most overall simply because it has the (second) biggest population, and that makes it look bad in the “per country” statistic. But per person they pollute less than half of what someone from the US, Australia or Canada do.

            Another extreme example is India, it is on spot 3 on overall emissions, which means it produces a fuckton of CO2, even though per capita the figure is 1.89 - one person from the US produces as much CO2 emissions than 8 people from India. They are already well below the global average (~5 tons per person) and even below the suggested target to counter climate change - 2.5 per person.