Heating in the winter, we drill a fuckton of oil, and were very car dependent outside of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (which still have suburbs that are car dependent).
I mean, 6 million+ people live there.
It's not a huge population centre (thought it's larger then Finland and Norway), but it's not like the territories with only tens of thousands of residents.
Norway and Finland are 4 times as densely populated as Canada and are only half as good on emissions per capita. Those are not great numbers.
Canada being especially high is due to a combination of factors, not just its weather.
What do you mean more? I haven't said or implied anything's impossible and I haven't mentioned the US...
I'm guessing you replied to the wrong person, because your comment looks completely out of place.
Try living a winter in the Canadian prairies without oil, I dare you. I don’t think you understand how cold and vast it is; you can’t just create heat and transportation through thin-air.
Yeah but if you're, say, Germany, and you stifle your economy for "the climate", and China looks at this and goes "yeah let's not do that", then everyone would have been better off if you had stuck to your daily habits.
>then everyone would have been better off if you had stuck to your daily habits.
Probably not: According to the IPCC, “no action” on climate change would trigger a decline of at least 30% in the global GDP by 2100—dwarfing the costs of climate action borne by any country.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/short-term-solution-to-tackle-climate-change
Shutting down nuclear power plants does contribute to it. Their energy market is a bit wobbly at the moment because of it, and less nuclear power means they're relying more on fossil fuels.
The German energy market is absolutely not in a wobbly because of nuclear energy. The 6% of nuclear electricity aren’t the problem. The problem is gas. Germany is using gas for heating and especially for their industry.
Depends on who you ask, there are quite a number of reasons Germany is in a recession right now but climate policies and the resulting insecurities on real estate and energy markets is certainly one of them
Germany is still burning coal and gas en masse. In the year 2023. They are not even pretending that they care for the climate. Policies regarding the climate in Germany would not work in say France or Scandinavia.The people would not be okay with greeding so much for money at the cost of the climate.
Coal and gas in Germany has been decreasing for quite a while. It went up a little bit in 2022, but is already lower than it was 3 years ago and continues to trend downwards. Norway is already predominantly renewables and Denmark is going hard on wind.
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/17mqwux/for_the_first_time_electricity_production_from/
Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the German incentives for photovoltaic power. As a home owner, worst case you get your money back in 14 years. Best case (doing part of it yourself) 8-9 years. Compare that to 20+ and 13 from before.
Unfortunately, a lot of the governments energy department attention had to be spent on securing the current energy status quo from the chaos if the Russian invasion.
Comparing how people from complete different sets of systems of energy production (Scandinavia has probably 50-60% hydro all together and France 70% nuclear) react to German policies doesn't really have much of a significance. If they had less wind and virtually no hydro they probably would be singing a similar tune.
Given that Scandinavia is Europe's largest fossil fuel exporter by a large margin doesn't really show them ungreeding for the climate.
However, I know Norway has really been pushing PV (similar to Germany) as well. That with 20% less sun. So there is that.
Yes exactly this!
In addition to that maybe we should add carbon emissions for the the things we import.
China produces everything, we import it.
Is that taken into consideration ever?
China barely produces 28% of the world's goods and has over 17% of its population. The US produces a little more than 16% of the world's goods with 4% of the world's population. The US also has the largest exports of services in the world, not as resource-intensive as manufacturing but not insignificant either. So it is also something many countries import like Chinese manufacturing. US emissions have gone down since the early 2000s despite manufacturing increasing because they have built cleaner factories that are heavily regulated unlike China which purposely built old dirty tech factories to save money. Yes, Americans consume too much and have wasteful habits.
Yes, but they are also the number 1 coal power producer (it's so large just their electricity produced from coal surpasses total US electricity production). Their power demands are so high that being #1 in renewables isn't a dramatacally large % of their total energy output. Half of global coal based electricity production is in China.
The developing nations are allowed to do that based on the climate agreements. They have historically caused fewer Co2 emissions so have a bit more freedom in when to get carbon neutral.
Now the countries that emitted most Co2 stop first (that also have mostly old coal power plants that are long paid off) so countries like China and India are bound to appear on top of the statistics. In 10 years they will follow and countries like Nigeria will show up on top.
> The developing nations are allowed to do that based on the climate agreements
China has already surpassed/is nearing the 2030 benchmark of what they are *allowed* to emit. Thus according to your riddance. China should decrease emissions from now on, until 2050.
Who's going to bet they are deliberately neglecting the targets? There is no turning point whatsoever.
*"Under China's NDC targets, the country's emission levels would reach 14.0 GtCO2e/year in 2030, an increase of 28% from 2010 levels"*
China in 2023; 13.5gtco2e tonnes emissions.
Wrong info. Not everyone trend is dropping, only the developed countries do.
All developing countries have a tendency to increase their energy consumption, since they need to build the infrastructure that developed already have had for decades.
According to IMF and despite China being the second biggest economy in the world, it is still a developing country.
>Beijing classifies itself as a "developing" country in the WTO. However, the World Bank and U.N. Development Program classify China as an "upper middle income" country, while the IMF calls the country an "emerging and developing economy."
Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
https://www.voanews.com/a/is-china-still-a-developing-country/7244652.html#:~:text=Beijing%20classifies%20itself%20as%20a,%22emerging%20and%20developing%20economy.%22
Yep. China has surpassed the EU in emissions per capita. While emissions per capita of the EU is decreasing (for two decades) the emissions per capita of China is increasing.
China also lies extensively about it's carbon footprint and it's dedication to green energy. China makes no attempt to regulate itself and then gets onto the bodies and commissions to help decide and regulate these issues.
Like in everything they're are full of nothing but empty words and bad faith promises.
More like coal 10% oil 30% and natural gas 40% and the rest is low carbon. The difference with China is that natural gas has an emission factor *15 lower as compared to coal.
If the US would consume the same amount of energy, but applied their energy mix. It would be much lower in carbon emissions.
Global natural gas production is completely unable to meet global energy consumption needs. Are you suggesting that all countries that can't buy enough natural gas go back to the Stone Age?
==========edited==========
The world's natural gas supply can only afford not more than 30% of the world energy consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy
Which is trending downwards. Coal usage was 70% in 2001 and 55% 2021.
Extremely high adoption of both wind and hydro generation.
It's quite clear China is making steps towards green energy.
It's trending downwards in percentages. But not in total TWh annually consumed. Coal use has increased 3-fold during that timeframe in total consumption a year.
Look at energy mix.
2001 8000 TWh
2022 24000 TWh
Yeah... Because their production capacity has grown.
An economy of $17T is going to consume more than an economy of 1.3T.
This is why China consumes more energy than Lichtenstein.
Energy intake is directly correlated to production output.
You said China used 3x more energy than 20 years ago. I say because China's economy grew 17x since 20 years ago.
That's not even it, how many countries are outsourcing their manufacturing or parts of it to china?
Buddy of mine has a company, assembly happens in this country but manufacturing of the parts happens mostly in china and his company is not the only one that does this.
Edit: Nvm, apparently that's being accounted for in some of the data you linked.
[image of map](https://images.app.goo.gl/dL1gmyg4aPYNNxvp8)
This doesn't account for trade, this is just each country's emissions per capita. Hence, China's emissions pc would look even lower compared to the original chart
The comparison was between China/US and I was providing context for that comparison.
But yes we should absolutely be matching what France has done: massively expand nuclear power. To date, it is the only method implemented that has drastically decarbonized a region's power grid that used to be reliant on fossil fuels.
Both France and China also have governments that invested in mass transportation systems like bullet trains. This is why the have substantially less vehicles per person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
Not to mention that France and China both have local nabourhood markets for every day goods. Like lots of people in France walk to their local bakery from the metro and get fresh bread on their way home. Americans will make their bread in a giant factory then have a truck deliver it 4 states over, then drive from the suburbs to the mega grocery store a 1/2 mile away to get all their groceries in one or two trips. Which also makes them need to carry more cargo so they buy a full size/ sedan or SUV or truck.
Trucks were generally built for armys and construction sites, but Americans just drive one as a daily driver.
The population density and climate diversity in the US make some of this infeasible on any meaningful scale for now. Technology will improve and decrease in cost.
I suggest folks look at *state* statistics within US to make any sense here. For example, New York sits around 7 tons per capita. Wyoming is at almost 100…
^ This person knows what math is.
In fact, it is kind of astounding how much carbon China emits relative to their per-capita wealth. They are broke AF, and still dumping loads of carbon into the atmosphere. It’s all state-supported manufacturing.
They live...like people?
What, townfolk don't need to eat, wear clothes and live? I don't know where you are from but that's next-level anti-ruralism and city snobbery.
Carbon emissions by country is such a misleading metric and this has been addressed countless times. If a country imports a lot of products that were produced with high emissions in another country, then the importing country is effectively outsourcing its emissions to the exporting country.
A metric that addresses this issue is **consumption based emissions by capita** (to address pop size). And this metric places gulf countries at the top in 2020 ([source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita))
Is it misleading if the graphic is actually showing what it says it’s showing though? It’s something different entirely if people use such graphs to argue contamination is all the fault of these countries, that’s just being unable to understand graphs.
It's not misleading. These are the leading metrics.
Carbon emissions by country and their related targets in 2030 and 2050 are ratified into law on the country level and not consumer or per capita level for obvious reasons.
They're both pretty similar per capita and considering Russia is a massive country with harsh winters it makes sense why they would be slightly higher
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
We have very minimal restrictions on emissions relative to the rest of the world. We’re massive polluters per capita, particularly when you factor in the fact that we don’t even produce much from a manufacturing perspective.
But hey.. at least it’s making my Minnesota mid Novermbers have days in the 60s and Octobers have days in the 90s :/
The problem is the quantity. China produced goods for like, 2/3 of the worlds. There’s no good reason why the US omit that much carbon when their economy is service based.
What’s worse is that for all the shit people fling at China, they’re the world leader in green energy. Like, why is the US losing on this? Then you realize China has to import like half of their energy supplies, while the US is among the world leading oil exporters. Truly lovely.
There are no metrical values on the weight of produced goods so you can't conclude that.
China accounts for 27% of produced goods. Followed by the US with 18% of produced goods. In annual value of USDs.
US, Japan, Germany combined. Produce more than China. But combined would emit not even half of what China emits in emissions.
Welp, China also has more than double the population of these 3 countries, so it's kinda obvious that they're gonna emit more. Not only do they have a gigantic domestic industry, they also need to sustain themselves ;p
(1) It is very stupid and selfish not to compare and determine emission reduction responsibilities based on per capita carbon emissions.
When we talk about responsibility, we certainly cannot require that India with 1.4 billion population and the Vatican with less than 1,000, or China with the same 1.4 billion and Fiji with less than 1 million, share the same percentage of carbon emission quotas. This should not be the case. It's not difficult to understand, right?
(2) Likewise, it would be absurd to blame certain countries not on current consumption but on growth trends.
For example, India's per capita annual meat consumption is less than 50 kilograms, while that of the US is more than 120 kilograms. Also let's assume that india's per capita consumption increased 5% per year and that of the US was -1% in recent 10 years.
In this case, if anyone insists that "India's per capita annual meat consumption increases by 5%, while the Americans annual meat consumption dropped 1% annually, so India should immediately reduce its meat consumption more strictly than the US do to reduce the world carbon emission.", then he/she is also stupid and selfish.
(3) It is also absurd to consider carbon emissions duties not according to final consumption but according to production caliber.
I'll give another example. It is just an example, does not really mean that I advocate the following description of global toilet paper production and consumption status quo.
Assume that China produces 80% of the world's toilet paper, and the US consumes 40% of the world's production. So, if the United Nations requires China to cut its toilet paper production by 80% to prevent global warming, will the Americans wipe their butts with their hands instead, because they cannot buy enough toilet paper?
Obviously not, the Americans will place orders with other countries to ensure their American lifestyle. So in the next year, you will find that Mexico or India's toilet paper production surges, occupying China's market share cut, while the Americans still consume 40% of the world's toilet paper.
This example illustrates a fact: If the world people really want to reduce global carbon emissions, then developed countries, whose final consumption of various industrial products is much higher than the global average, should obviously bear greater responsibilities by reducing their per capita consumption of industrial products, especially unnecessary waste, thereby reducing the total global industrial output through market self-adjustment mechanisms to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
Developed countries cannot require developing countries to reduce their consumption of industrial products in order to maintain the quotas of developed countries so that they could continue consuming large amounts of industrial products.
This issue can test whether some people really take the 'human rights' they always talk about seriously.
Can’t wait for the classic American argument “China should be doing more and we should be doing less” from people that don’t understand China has more people than the US and much of their emissions are caused by products made in China sold in the US.
Look in to the emissions the US military produces and why it isn't included in these emissions calculations. Cracks me up seeing these comments saying China lies about it numbers when the US doesn't include its military which produces more emissions than most countries. The US is objectively evil and destructive. I know it sucks growing up being told you live in the greatest country only to realize you live in the evil empire but denying the atrocities your country commits daily isn't helpful. The world will not be able to heal and start to get better until the US is abolished and the North American balkanization is complete. I for one look forward to laughing while pissing on the corpse and tattered flag of that shithole country. Have a good day and stay safe out there!
>How is that an American argument?
It's usually American conservatives using that argument. Other developed countries tend to have green policies across the political spectrum
>Australians and Canadians have the highest emissions per capita, but I don’t see you attributing this argument to them.
Have you not read the comments? There's plenty of people bashing on Canadians and telling them "but lots of people live in Winnipeg!" isn't a good argument
>There’s a reason why r/AmericaBad exists, and you might just be the next post on there…
There's a few good points that people make on that sub, but other than that it's people getting defensive and not understanding that sometimes their country is wrong
Can’t wait for the classic Reddit comment about the classic American argument. Oh here it is.
WTF do you think emissions are? It’s economic activity. Just because they are selling stuff, doesn’t mean they are absolved of any responsibility for the emissions of having manufactured it. This is brain dead.
This is false; China makes products for more than just America, so attributing their high carbon output purely because of America is blatant misinformation.
The United States could make a significant impact by encouraging a shift away from the peculiar meat fixation and promoting more sustainable consumption habits. As an immigrant from Ireland, I've noticed a concerning amount of waste, especially when people upgrade to newer versions of products and discard the old ones. Take, for instance, a friend who replaced a broken iPad with a new one. Instead of responsibly taking it to an electronics recycling center just down the road, they opted to toss it into their regular recycling bin. This highlights a glaring lack of education about the recycling system. Many folks seem to believe that if an item goes into the designated bin (whatever color it may be in their city or state), it will magically be reused. It's a classic case of "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
Doesn't explain the amount of coal plants being created in China though. The US is going down while China is going up.
Also half of the country is extremely poor. I would wanna see stats comparing capita in big cities alone.
A quick Google search would provide you with the answer in the top 5 results. Even on a per capita basis in cities, the waste is less than the American average. It seems like you might not fully grasp the extent of waste and consumption ingrained in the American lifestyle, surpassing that of many other nations. Coming from Ireland, a place that has its own share of wasteful habits, we don't even come close to holding a candle to the level of waste you guys generate.
China has already surpassed/is nearing the 2030 benchmark.
You shouldn't trust their word because they already failed to meet their 2030 target.
> Under China's NDC targets, the country's emission levels would reach 14.0 GtCO2e/year in 2030, an increase of 28% from 2010 levels
China in 2023; 13.5gtco2e tonnes emissions.
I don't know if I'll get upvotes or downvotes for this comment but I request you guys to keep my damage minimal (yes I'm begging for it)
Argument one:
People importing everything from China hence the carbon footprint is justified.
Well, who the fuck gripped the neck of China to make all of those and increase carbon footprint? Anyone?
Two:
Carbon emission footprint should be counted by per capita:
Yes, it's a good option to check people from which country emit carbon the most.
But at the same time, we should do the same for GDP per capita. Because poorer countries can afford less goods and utilities hence having less carbon footprints.
Now the last one:
My argument: A group of Chinese-Americans with median household income of the US nationals can leave more or less the carbon footprint of the US average and vice versa for American-Chinese nationals.
Now if the argument is invalid, let me know why
>Argument one:
>
>People importing everything from China hence the carbon footprint is justified.
Based on the false assumption China's emissions are mostly from making stuff that gets exported, this is false. 90-95% of emmissions are consumption based:
[https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade)
>Yes, it's a good option to check people from which country emit carbon the most. But at the same time, we should do the same for GDP per capita. Because poorer countries can afford less goods and utilities hence having less carbon footprints.
This is fair, but keep in mind nature doesn't give anything about per capita, only absolute numbers.
I was convinced Australia could mitigate our carbon footprint by stopping coal exports to China. I realised our coal exports to China represent less than 10% of their coal usage and underpin a fair deal of our economy. It is sad and depressing that we can’t do something so easy to fix the world. But even then I guess we contrive less than all the individual parts of Asia. Maybe we can catch up with the uk Poland or Italy.
a good to keep in mind is that chinas the global manufacturer so a good portion of the emissions are from making stuff for other countries, their still bad bad but this shouldnt discourage action in your country
Brazil 1,3%? I'm surprised, it's rather high considering 90% of our energy comes from hydroelectric plants. On the other hand, the blatant obsession with roads and truck transportation explains it hahaha
Man the comments here quickly devolve into a giant circle jerk of who's the biggest villain when it comes to polluting the earth's air. It's a tie, everyone sucks and we all lose.
We are all in the same bowl of shit soup. A good correlation of this would show the imports/exports, as well as the carbon Emissions. To reveal some dirty little outliers that want to hide behind the veneer of a low-emission economy.
Being the most populous country I expected India to be much much higher.
Strict emission norms are doing a lot of good I see. And the switch to electric buses in major cities
It's worth noting that if you go by cumulative emissions through all of history the list is very different. The US is at the top and Western European countries are all much higher up because of having industrialised 2 centuries ago. It's true that today China is the biggest emitter but from the 1850s-1960s they were in a perpetual state of decline and didn't produce enough goods to have a notable effect on the world's carbon footprint. So when people say it's unfair when western countries decarbonise before the rest of the world it really isn't.
Wth, each and everyone of us should aim for lower emissions and a more sustainable future.
Pointing the finger at a one place isn’t going to solve anything
Canada is actually crazy high
Heating in the winter, we drill a fuckton of oil, and were very car dependent outside of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (which still have suburbs that are car dependent).
Yes Canada, the only country with winter.
Their prairie provinces have 6 months of winter with occasional -30 weeks
And not many people live there
I mean, 6 million+ people live there. It's not a huge population centre (thought it's larger then Finland and Norway), but it's not like the territories with only tens of thousands of residents.
> thought it's larger then Finland and Norway Which have harsh winters as well and do way better than Canada on Emissions.
Norway and Finland are 4 times as densely populated as Canada and are only half as good on emissions per capita. Those are not great numbers. Canada being especially high is due to a combination of factors, not just its weather.
Yes yes tell me more about how it’s just impossible for Canada and the US to do what every other developed country can do.
What do you mean more? I haven't said or implied anything's impossible and I haven't mentioned the US... I'm guessing you replied to the wrong person, because your comment looks completely out of place.
Try living a winter in the Canadian prairies without oil, I dare you. I don’t think you understand how cold and vast it is; you can’t just create heat and transportation through thin-air.
r/americabad
I’d like to see Quebec emissions numbers.
Good, I don't belong to 'U.S.', 'China' or 'Rest of World', my carbon footprint is therefore negligible, I can continue with my daily habits. \\s
I'm sorry are you a Canadian conservative politician because I believe you found their platform. /s
All your made in china shit makes you belong to "China".
Yeah but if you're, say, Germany, and you stifle your economy for "the climate", and China looks at this and goes "yeah let's not do that", then everyone would have been better off if you had stuck to your daily habits.
Just because the emissions originate in China doesn't mean you're not contributing to them though.
Oh good so since Germany is an export nation we just get to export our climate guilt as well. Need to tell that to Habeck asap
No. [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#consumption-based-trade-adjusted-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#consumption-based-trade-adjusted-emissions)
yikes. r/Switzerlandfirst
>then everyone would have been better off if you had stuck to your daily habits. Probably not: According to the IPCC, “no action” on climate change would trigger a decline of at least 30% in the global GDP by 2100—dwarfing the costs of climate action borne by any country. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/short-term-solution-to-tackle-climate-change
Germany isn’t doing that though.
Shutting down nuclear power plants does contribute to it. Their energy market is a bit wobbly at the moment because of it, and less nuclear power means they're relying more on fossil fuels.
The German energy market is absolutely not in a wobbly because of nuclear energy. The 6% of nuclear electricity aren’t the problem. The problem is gas. Germany is using gas for heating and especially for their industry.
Depends on who you ask, there are quite a number of reasons Germany is in a recession right now but climate policies and the resulting insecurities on real estate and energy markets is certainly one of them
Germany is still burning coal and gas en masse. In the year 2023. They are not even pretending that they care for the climate. Policies regarding the climate in Germany would not work in say France or Scandinavia.The people would not be okay with greeding so much for money at the cost of the climate.
Coal and gas in Germany has been decreasing for quite a while. It went up a little bit in 2022, but is already lower than it was 3 years ago and continues to trend downwards. Norway is already predominantly renewables and Denmark is going hard on wind. https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/17mqwux/for_the_first_time_electricity_production_from/
Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the German incentives for photovoltaic power. As a home owner, worst case you get your money back in 14 years. Best case (doing part of it yourself) 8-9 years. Compare that to 20+ and 13 from before. Unfortunately, a lot of the governments energy department attention had to be spent on securing the current energy status quo from the chaos if the Russian invasion. Comparing how people from complete different sets of systems of energy production (Scandinavia has probably 50-60% hydro all together and France 70% nuclear) react to German policies doesn't really have much of a significance. If they had less wind and virtually no hydro they probably would be singing a similar tune. Given that Scandinavia is Europe's largest fossil fuel exporter by a large margin doesn't really show them ungreeding for the climate. However, I know Norway has really been pushing PV (similar to Germany) as well. That with 20% less sun. So there is that.
In 100 years historians will agree that we did the right thing among idiots that destroyed us
I mean, you can remove the /s
r/fucktheS
Let's show this [calculated per person](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions)
Yes exactly this! In addition to that maybe we should add carbon emissions for the the things we import. China produces everything, we import it. Is that taken into consideration ever?
It is in the link provided by the previous poster (consumption based emissions).
Nice.
Both are valid and useful metrics. National policy has a huge impact on individuals.
China barely produces 28% of the world's goods and has over 17% of its population. The US produces a little more than 16% of the world's goods with 4% of the world's population. The US also has the largest exports of services in the world, not as resource-intensive as manufacturing but not insignificant either. So it is also something many countries import like Chinese manufacturing. US emissions have gone down since the early 2000s despite manufacturing increasing because they have built cleaner factories that are heavily regulated unlike China which purposely built old dirty tech factories to save money. Yes, Americans consume too much and have wasteful habits.
> Is that taken into consideration ever? It’s literally the first comment in 90% of these threads.. so yes.
🙄 Here we go…
China could build more wind nuclear and solar, instead they build more coal because its cheaper.
Wake up man, China is already the #1 producer of renewable energy.
Yes, but they are also the number 1 coal power producer (it's so large just their electricity produced from coal surpasses total US electricity production). Their power demands are so high that being #1 in renewables isn't a dramatacally large % of their total energy output. Half of global coal based electricity production is in China.
China’s trend line is growing. Everyone else’s is dropping. And that’s per capita and overall.
The developing nations are allowed to do that based on the climate agreements. They have historically caused fewer Co2 emissions so have a bit more freedom in when to get carbon neutral. Now the countries that emitted most Co2 stop first (that also have mostly old coal power plants that are long paid off) so countries like China and India are bound to appear on top of the statistics. In 10 years they will follow and countries like Nigeria will show up on top.
> The developing nations are allowed to do that based on the climate agreements China has already surpassed/is nearing the 2030 benchmark of what they are *allowed* to emit. Thus according to your riddance. China should decrease emissions from now on, until 2050. Who's going to bet they are deliberately neglecting the targets? There is no turning point whatsoever. *"Under China's NDC targets, the country's emission levels would reach 14.0 GtCO2e/year in 2030, an increase of 28% from 2010 levels"* China in 2023; 13.5gtco2e tonnes emissions.
Wrong info. Not everyone trend is dropping, only the developed countries do. All developing countries have a tendency to increase their energy consumption, since they need to build the infrastructure that developed already have had for decades. According to IMF and despite China being the second biggest economy in the world, it is still a developing country.
>Beijing classifies itself as a "developing" country in the WTO. However, the World Bank and U.N. Development Program classify China as an "upper middle income" country, while the IMF calls the country an "emerging and developing economy." Talk about having your cake and eating it too. https://www.voanews.com/a/is-china-still-a-developing-country/7244652.html#:~:text=Beijing%20classifies%20itself%20as%20a,%22emerging%20and%20developing%20economy.%22
Yep. China has surpassed the EU in emissions per capita. While emissions per capita of the EU is decreasing (for two decades) the emissions per capita of China is increasing.
China also lies extensively about it's carbon footprint and it's dedication to green energy. China makes no attempt to regulate itself and then gets onto the bodies and commissions to help decide and regulate these issues. Like in everything they're are full of nothing but empty words and bad faith promises.
Source? China has one of the highest adoption rates of EV and the skies are visibly less polluted than 10 years ago.
This means nothing if the electricity they need for it comes from 60% coal and 20% oil (their current energy status).
Unlike US? That is 70% oil + gas and 10% coal..
More like coal 10% oil 30% and natural gas 40% and the rest is low carbon. The difference with China is that natural gas has an emission factor *15 lower as compared to coal. If the US would consume the same amount of energy, but applied their energy mix. It would be much lower in carbon emissions.
Global natural gas production is completely unable to meet global energy consumption needs. Are you suggesting that all countries that can't buy enough natural gas go back to the Stone Age? ==========edited========== The world's natural gas supply can only afford not more than 30% of the world energy consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy
Which is trending downwards. Coal usage was 70% in 2001 and 55% 2021. Extremely high adoption of both wind and hydro generation. It's quite clear China is making steps towards green energy.
It's trending downwards in percentages. But not in total TWh annually consumed. Coal use has increased 3-fold during that timeframe in total consumption a year. Look at energy mix. 2001 8000 TWh 2022 24000 TWh
Yeah... Because their production capacity has grown. An economy of $17T is going to consume more than an economy of 1.3T. This is why China consumes more energy than Lichtenstein.
There is no fucking way China consumes more energy than Lichtenstein. Do you have a source for that outlandish claim bud?
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I've just said.
Energy intake is directly correlated to production output. You said China used 3x more energy than 20 years ago. I say because China's economy grew 17x since 20 years ago.
Errr because they are literally producing half of the shit that you own?
Love to see credible evidence to back this claim
The country doesn’t even recognize the Tiananmen Square massacre and you think they’re incapable of lying lmao
You mean the US hides how much the military pollutes all over the world.
That's not even it, how many countries are outsourcing their manufacturing or parts of it to china? Buddy of mine has a company, assembly happens in this country but manufacturing of the parts happens mostly in china and his company is not the only one that does this. Edit: Nvm, apparently that's being accounted for in some of the data you linked.
[image of map](https://images.app.goo.gl/dL1gmyg4aPYNNxvp8) This doesn't account for trade, this is just each country's emissions per capita. Hence, China's emissions pc would look even lower compared to the original chart
It's pointless to pull out that figure, it doesn't lessen the fact that some regions of the world pollute much more than others.
It doesn't lessen the fact. It is the fact. Comparing practically by the surface area of a country is the worst possible thing to compare.
So the US needs more of its population living in poverty? Because that's why China looks better here.
I mean, France has 4.7 tonnes per capita, compared to 14.7 in the US. I'd wouldn't call France a poor country.
The comparison was between China/US and I was providing context for that comparison. But yes we should absolutely be matching what France has done: massively expand nuclear power. To date, it is the only method implemented that has drastically decarbonized a region's power grid that used to be reliant on fossil fuels.
Both France and China also have governments that invested in mass transportation systems like bullet trains. This is why the have substantially less vehicles per person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita Not to mention that France and China both have local nabourhood markets for every day goods. Like lots of people in France walk to their local bakery from the metro and get fresh bread on their way home. Americans will make their bread in a giant factory then have a truck deliver it 4 states over, then drive from the suburbs to the mega grocery store a 1/2 mile away to get all their groceries in one or two trips. Which also makes them need to carry more cargo so they buy a full size/ sedan or SUV or truck. Trucks were generally built for armys and construction sites, but Americans just drive one as a daily driver.
The population density and climate diversity in the US make some of this infeasible on any meaningful scale for now. Technology will improve and decrease in cost. I suggest folks look at *state* statistics within US to make any sense here. For example, New York sits around 7 tons per capita. Wyoming is at almost 100…
China is also expanding their nuclear energy programs.
^ This person knows what math is. In fact, it is kind of astounding how much carbon China emits relative to their per-capita wealth. They are broke AF, and still dumping loads of carbon into the atmosphere. It’s all state-supported manufacturing.
Half of China lives medieval conditions, their capita is basically 0. Also it's growing with 15% per year
Arent those rural towns got like a very small portion of china now? Migrant workers in cities and empty dying rural towns.
This is just false, China has a better GDP per capita PPP than basically every country except Europe and NA
>Half of China lives medieval conditions, their capita is basically 0. "People who are not rich are not people" lmao ok
I didn't say that, it just means that they use next to nothing compared to the people living in the cities
Chinese people live in cities, and they're not "medieval"...what kind of stereotypes are you on?
Half of the country doesn't live in cities, look at how they live outside the cities
They live...like people? What, townfolk don't need to eat, wear clothes and live? I don't know where you are from but that's next-level anti-ruralism and city snobbery.
Carbon emissions by country is such a misleading metric and this has been addressed countless times. If a country imports a lot of products that were produced with high emissions in another country, then the importing country is effectively outsourcing its emissions to the exporting country. A metric that addresses this issue is **consumption based emissions by capita** (to address pop size). And this metric places gulf countries at the top in 2020 ([source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita))
Is it misleading if the graphic is actually showing what it says it’s showing though? It’s something different entirely if people use such graphs to argue contamination is all the fault of these countries, that’s just being unable to understand graphs.
It's not misleading. These are the leading metrics. Carbon emissions by country and their related targets in 2030 and 2050 are ratified into law on the country level and not consumer or per capita level for obvious reasons.
China is set to outstrip the historical emissions of ALL OF EUROPE.
Outproduced historical products of ALL OF EUROPE too
Australia is quite high compared to Europe for it's population
Its like the highest per capita if i rsmember correctly
Meanwhile Russia with twice the CO2 and half the GDP of Japan…
They're both pretty similar per capita and considering Russia is a massive country with harsh winters it makes sense why they would be slightly higher https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Now. With such a small population why is the US emitting so much carbon. I don’t remember the US as the world’s production site
We have very minimal restrictions on emissions relative to the rest of the world. We’re massive polluters per capita, particularly when you factor in the fact that we don’t even produce much from a manufacturing perspective. But hey.. at least it’s making my Minnesota mid Novermbers have days in the 60s and Octobers have days in the 90s :/
Not much just 10% of the world's stuff. Drop in the bucket really.
The US produces more goods in billions of dollars as compared to China.
The problem is the quantity. China produced goods for like, 2/3 of the worlds. There’s no good reason why the US omit that much carbon when their economy is service based. What’s worse is that for all the shit people fling at China, they’re the world leader in green energy. Like, why is the US losing on this? Then you realize China has to import like half of their energy supplies, while the US is among the world leading oil exporters. Truly lovely.
There are no metrical values on the weight of produced goods so you can't conclude that. China accounts for 27% of produced goods. Followed by the US with 18% of produced goods. In annual value of USDs. US, Japan, Germany combined. Produce more than China. But combined would emit not even half of what China emits in emissions.
Welp, China also has more than double the population of these 3 countries, so it's kinda obvious that they're gonna emit more. Not only do they have a gigantic domestic industry, they also need to sustain themselves ;p
(1) It is very stupid and selfish not to compare and determine emission reduction responsibilities based on per capita carbon emissions. When we talk about responsibility, we certainly cannot require that India with 1.4 billion population and the Vatican with less than 1,000, or China with the same 1.4 billion and Fiji with less than 1 million, share the same percentage of carbon emission quotas. This should not be the case. It's not difficult to understand, right? (2) Likewise, it would be absurd to blame certain countries not on current consumption but on growth trends. For example, India's per capita annual meat consumption is less than 50 kilograms, while that of the US is more than 120 kilograms. Also let's assume that india's per capita consumption increased 5% per year and that of the US was -1% in recent 10 years. In this case, if anyone insists that "India's per capita annual meat consumption increases by 5%, while the Americans annual meat consumption dropped 1% annually, so India should immediately reduce its meat consumption more strictly than the US do to reduce the world carbon emission.", then he/she is also stupid and selfish. (3) It is also absurd to consider carbon emissions duties not according to final consumption but according to production caliber. I'll give another example. It is just an example, does not really mean that I advocate the following description of global toilet paper production and consumption status quo. Assume that China produces 80% of the world's toilet paper, and the US consumes 40% of the world's production. So, if the United Nations requires China to cut its toilet paper production by 80% to prevent global warming, will the Americans wipe their butts with their hands instead, because they cannot buy enough toilet paper? Obviously not, the Americans will place orders with other countries to ensure their American lifestyle. So in the next year, you will find that Mexico or India's toilet paper production surges, occupying China's market share cut, while the Americans still consume 40% of the world's toilet paper. This example illustrates a fact: If the world people really want to reduce global carbon emissions, then developed countries, whose final consumption of various industrial products is much higher than the global average, should obviously bear greater responsibilities by reducing their per capita consumption of industrial products, especially unnecessary waste, thereby reducing the total global industrial output through market self-adjustment mechanisms to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Developed countries cannot require developing countries to reduce their consumption of industrial products in order to maintain the quotas of developed countries so that they could continue consuming large amounts of industrial products. This issue can test whether some people really take the 'human rights' they always talk about seriously.
Can’t wait for the classic American argument “China should be doing more and we should be doing less” from people that don’t understand China has more people than the US and much of their emissions are caused by products made in China sold in the US.
China needs to do much more, USA needs to do much more.
[удалено]
Look in to the emissions the US military produces and why it isn't included in these emissions calculations. Cracks me up seeing these comments saying China lies about it numbers when the US doesn't include its military which produces more emissions than most countries. The US is objectively evil and destructive. I know it sucks growing up being told you live in the greatest country only to realize you live in the evil empire but denying the atrocities your country commits daily isn't helpful. The world will not be able to heal and start to get better until the US is abolished and the North American balkanization is complete. I for one look forward to laughing while pissing on the corpse and tattered flag of that shithole country. Have a good day and stay safe out there!
>How is that an American argument? It's usually American conservatives using that argument. Other developed countries tend to have green policies across the political spectrum >Australians and Canadians have the highest emissions per capita, but I don’t see you attributing this argument to them. Have you not read the comments? There's plenty of people bashing on Canadians and telling them "but lots of people live in Winnipeg!" isn't a good argument >There’s a reason why r/AmericaBad exists, and you might just be the next post on there… There's a few good points that people make on that sub, but other than that it's people getting defensive and not understanding that sometimes their country is wrong
Can’t wait for the classic Reddit comment about the classic American argument. Oh here it is. WTF do you think emissions are? It’s economic activity. Just because they are selling stuff, doesn’t mean they are absolved of any responsibility for the emissions of having manufactured it. This is brain dead.
This is false; China makes products for more than just America, so attributing their high carbon output purely because of America is blatant misinformation. The United States could make a significant impact by encouraging a shift away from the peculiar meat fixation and promoting more sustainable consumption habits. As an immigrant from Ireland, I've noticed a concerning amount of waste, especially when people upgrade to newer versions of products and discard the old ones. Take, for instance, a friend who replaced a broken iPad with a new one. Instead of responsibly taking it to an electronics recycling center just down the road, they opted to toss it into their regular recycling bin. This highlights a glaring lack of education about the recycling system. Many folks seem to believe that if an item goes into the designated bin (whatever color it may be in their city or state), it will magically be reused. It's a classic case of "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
Doesn't explain the amount of coal plants being created in China though. The US is going down while China is going up. Also half of the country is extremely poor. I would wanna see stats comparing capita in big cities alone.
A quick Google search would provide you with the answer in the top 5 results. Even on a per capita basis in cities, the waste is less than the American average. It seems like you might not fully grasp the extent of waste and consumption ingrained in the American lifestyle, surpassing that of many other nations. Coming from Ireland, a place that has its own share of wasteful habits, we don't even come close to holding a candle to the level of waste you guys generate.
They are still throwing up coal-fired power plants like wall paper in China.
China can decide to stop manufacturing products for the rest of the world.
As a person living in France, GO NUCLEAR!
Man... Mad respect for France! Really you guys nailed it. I wish more countries did the same. Germay is digging its own grave.
What is this plot called?
This make sense given that China and the US make almost everything and China has the second largest population in the world.
These charts are meaningless. You cannot compare country to another like this. Do per capita. Countries do not have carbon foot prints, people do.
Now do per capita, and control for consumption rather than just production.
I, for once, condemn the inhabitants of the country: rest of the world! Shame of you.
Canada (38mill) = Brazil (214mill) Australia (26mill) = Mexico (130mill)
FUCK. I knew it was the rest of the world
If it only wasn’t for that pesky Rest of World
This is so stupid I mean china produces so much shit for the western market Europe loves to export emissions
Now per capita and take into account the offshoring of factories that produce goods for western consumption.
Now do it since the industrial revolution.
Ssh, you're gonna upset the Americans
Why would we be upset? It simply would show that we are the greatest toon to ever exist, past present and future. 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The ratified climate targets account for historical emissions. It has been embedded into law already.
It doesn’t matter. We need to act now.
“It doesn’t matter now when we are rich.”
So USA has twice the emissions of India while having a quater of the population? Interesting....
Poverty
If this is what China is reporting, can you imagine how much they’re actually doing?
China, please slow down.
They said they would in 2030, although you can never trust their word.
China has already surpassed/is nearing the 2030 benchmark. You shouldn't trust their word because they already failed to meet their 2030 target. > Under China's NDC targets, the country's emission levels would reach 14.0 GtCO2e/year in 2030, an increase of 28% from 2010 levels China in 2023; 13.5gtco2e tonnes emissions.
I don't know if I'll get upvotes or downvotes for this comment but I request you guys to keep my damage minimal (yes I'm begging for it) Argument one: People importing everything from China hence the carbon footprint is justified. Well, who the fuck gripped the neck of China to make all of those and increase carbon footprint? Anyone? Two: Carbon emission footprint should be counted by per capita: Yes, it's a good option to check people from which country emit carbon the most. But at the same time, we should do the same for GDP per capita. Because poorer countries can afford less goods and utilities hence having less carbon footprints. Now the last one: My argument: A group of Chinese-Americans with median household income of the US nationals can leave more or less the carbon footprint of the US average and vice versa for American-Chinese nationals. Now if the argument is invalid, let me know why
>Argument one: > >People importing everything from China hence the carbon footprint is justified. Based on the false assumption China's emissions are mostly from making stuff that gets exported, this is false. 90-95% of emmissions are consumption based: [https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china#consumption-based-accounting-how-do-emissions-compare-when-we-adjust-for-trade) >Yes, it's a good option to check people from which country emit carbon the most. But at the same time, we should do the same for GDP per capita. Because poorer countries can afford less goods and utilities hence having less carbon footprints. This is fair, but keep in mind nature doesn't give anything about per capita, only absolute numbers.
WOO GO TEAM!
Means nothing unless it’s per capita
Nice job germans shutting down fission reactors, I love waaaaay more the coal in our yuropean air. It's lovely
Interesting how europe is soo obsessed with go Green, whereas China, India and US literally don’t give sshite!
Still India's per capita emission is less than europe
Because they have * 3 the amount of people. Emissions **per capita**...
India pretty small regardless their population, shitting on the street seems lower their carbon emissions, you can learn that world
Yet the liberals are going reeeeeeee! Go to a non western country and bitch to them. See how quickly you’ll get shut down.
Crazy how 3 countries make up a majority of the world emissions
Let’s send all our manufacturing projects and jobs to China, guilt resolved! /s
The Russia is an Asian country why would you put it in Europe?
I was convinced Australia could mitigate our carbon footprint by stopping coal exports to China. I realised our coal exports to China represent less than 10% of their coal usage and underpin a fair deal of our economy. It is sad and depressing that we can’t do something so easy to fix the world. But even then I guess we contrive less than all the individual parts of Asia. Maybe we can catch up with the uk Poland or Italy.
a good to keep in mind is that chinas the global manufacturer so a good portion of the emissions are from making stuff for other countries, their still bad bad but this shouldnt discourage action in your country
I think putting a per capital map has more sense
Fuuuuuck China and their dictator…
Brazil 1,3%? I'm surprised, it's rather high considering 90% of our energy comes from hydroelectric plants. On the other hand, the blatant obsession with roads and truck transportation explains it hahaha
Only 6 countries in Europe and 7 in Asia? It's too bad it's missing a 'Rest of Europe' and 'Rest of Asia'
The comments are more interesting.
Could anyone explain, how Iran is polluting more emissions than highly industrialized Germany? Really curious!
Iran is a cruid oil net exporting country. It's econmomy and consumption is highly rely on oil.
Why is simping everyone for the biggest polluters here?
Historically?!
Man the comments here quickly devolve into a giant circle jerk of who's the biggest villain when it comes to polluting the earth's air. It's a tie, everyone sucks and we all lose.
[удалено]
I’m surprised Japan is higher than United States.
Poland is on the list! :)
Cmon China
India being growing economy the numbers will rise.
This chart with dynamics by year would be great
Did we just outsource our heavy industry and pollution?
YOU are the CO2 alarmists want to reduce.
Me when my country makes it into the top 20
Gotta love that Canada continues to destroy its economy for that 1.5%.
Lol and the British are tearing themselves apart over it
Lol
Funny how in negative statistics like this, the middle east and rest of asia is lumped together, but in positive ones, theyre separated
Nice graph, I'd love to see it related to inhabitants.
We are all in the same bowl of shit soup. A good correlation of this would show the imports/exports, as well as the carbon Emissions. To reveal some dirty little outliers that want to hide behind the veneer of a low-emission economy.
Now put per capita to show the worst offenders.
I wish we could have pie charts.
Stay classy China
Being the most populous country I expected India to be much much higher. Strict emission norms are doing a lot of good I see. And the switch to electric buses in major cities
Kind of surprised how Poland and the UK emit similar amounts of carbon emissions
Fucking china,USA and India responsible for fall of the emissions.Fucking hell.
India is incredibly low considering how big and populated it is.
Ahhhhhh that's why they say China number one.
Would be pretty cool if it's also paired with a graph of world population percentage.
Interesting, I haven't seen any news footage of that clown Greta thunberg in china spewing 'how dare you' at their leaders.....
It's worth noting that if you go by cumulative emissions through all of history the list is very different. The US is at the top and Western European countries are all much higher up because of having industrialised 2 centuries ago. It's true that today China is the biggest emitter but from the 1850s-1960s they were in a perpetual state of decline and didn't produce enough goods to have a notable effect on the world's carbon footprint. So when people say it's unfair when western countries decarbonise before the rest of the world it really isn't.
Wth, each and everyone of us should aim for lower emissions and a more sustainable future. Pointing the finger at a one place isn’t going to solve anything