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:
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.
#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.
...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.
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.
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.
Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes only.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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
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!
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?
The per-capita figure indicates the level of industrialization, and the curve shows whether and how much consideration is being given to curbing carbon emissions.
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.
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"?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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
Very interesting post but it is unreadable on mobile. Text jumps around (no dimensions for images?) and something weird happens with the scroll. Shame.
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.
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.
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.
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...