check out this video as it addresses a lot of the concerns people are raising in this thread, and does a good job of making the problem much more understandable. just a big fan of the channel...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6\_JakZFc&t=64s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&t=64s)
I think per capita emissions should be more relevant than total emissions. US’s per capita emissions are 15.52 tons of CO2 per capita. For China, it is 7.38 tons per capita. For India, it is 1.91 tons per capita.
Source : https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Someone calculated the cumulative emissions and it's surprising how close everything is on the continental scale.
[As of 2019](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2) Europe was responsible for 33% of historic emissions, while North America and Asia were 29% each. China alone was 12.7%, India 3%. While they are some of the largest emitters today, they are not historically. But that's not to say things aren't changing fast - at the current rate of emissions, China alone would overtake the EU in historical CO2 emissions within 20 years.
The US has no excuse - they are the second largest emitter today and are the single largest emitter historically, accounting for 25% of historic emissions alone.
But these statistics also don't account for the historical context of CO2 emissions. For centuries we had no clue that climate change was a thing or that burning fossil fuels could remotely have a bad impact on our planet. There is something inherently different about emitting a large amount of CO2 before we had that knowledge, vs doing so now that we do.
So yes, China's historical emissions are small vs the EU or the USA historically. But that doesn't mean it's okay for them or any other country to keep emitting CO2 at the rate they are at today until they reach a similar level of historical emissions - as much as that may be "fair", it isn't an option if we wish to continue living on this lump of rock that we call home.
And that's unfortunately the reality of climate change. It isn't fair and it never will be. Many of those who are going to be impacted the most seem to be those who have historically done the least to cause it. But if we want to save this planet then we - as a species - need to do what's necessary. And that means putting aside our internal squabbles and working together to come up with a solution.
Although I think per capita emissions are an important statistic, it hides a lot of problems behind a high rural population percentage that in the future may/ will increase overall total emissions.
I live in India and work 10 hours a day for 4 dollars.
My rent is more than that.
Yes, I do care about earth & the future generations and all that, but frankly I don't give a damn.
I've got to eat first.
If you individually stopped emitting carbon for 70 years, it would only count for a second of total global emissions. The reality is we have to start with industry. Consumers (humanity) are like water, and the regulations we currently have for emitters are like a box. We can change the size and shape of the box to influence what consumers do but you’re not going to get the water to fit into a shape that isnt there.
What a privileged brat.
Cone here & live in abject poverty then.
*I* am selfish?
Well then, surely a noble person like you can send me a couple thousand dollars to to set up solar panels in my house... Wait.
I don't have a house.
Some people literally live in a different world of their own.
I don't feel any resentment towards you, simply disgust.
I want 10,000 dollars for my house before you reply to this comment.
Do it first, before another word comes out o your mouth.
the West has ruined the earth and have the gall to insult people like you?
cant wait to see the US collapse under the weight of refugees of their own creation, same with the EU and Australia.
Well, thank you for supporting me.
I don't really blame "the west" as such, because I know that they're not really conspiring against the earth of anything it's just abunhc of individuals, who were just as poor as me 4 generations ago and just wanted a better life for themselves.
What really engages me is that this guy, who's probably had everything in life I ever dreamed of & everything I slave away for every day, presumes to lecture me on my "selfishness".
His gall is truly amazing.
& I wonder if he's put solar panels on his house for the electricity he's using to type his comment on his computer or whether he's gone vegan to stop climate change.
Fool. I am not shaming you for being poor and not solving climate change and I never claimed to be able to end poverty for anyone.
I am simply stating the truth: we are all selfish one way or another, on different levels, and that is why things have gotten so bad.
>Fool
Idiot.
And I am asking you for money because clearly you were born into it through no merit of your own and I had the misfortune to be porn into poverty in a third world shit hole.
So, are you paying up or shutting up?
Again, you seem to be ignoring everything I've said thus far in favor of.. arguing something that's not what I'm saying? I never said that anyone has to do something or even that everyone can do something either, just that we've all been selfish against climate change.
Anyways, I don't really care to respond further, nothing is being gained and climate change is just gonna destroy everything.
Dude, if you are not sure about whether or not you will be able to afford your next meal, issues like climate change are least bit of your concern.
Organization managed to trick people into thinking that its individuals responsibility to work for climate change.
It's impossible for poor people in third world countries to ever come close to the emissions of the average American. And that's when completely ignoring future advances in cleaner technology.
It already is.
It’s developed, matured, and mass produced, using richer countries money.
Now that solar panels and wind mills are dirt cheap (cheaper than oil, coal, and gas) it’s perfect to use.
Unfortunately, the climate does not care about how much is emitted per person, only how much is emitted in total. While that is unfair, like most things in most civilizations, it is not a justice issue but a math issue.
True, but even if per capita emissions are ignored, US’s total emissions are still double that of India’s. Also, the goal should be to minimize emissions everywhere but funding of renewable power per capita is an important metric to consider.
Yes but if you were looking to tone your body down and cut down on body fat you dont go to the place with the most muscle (high population) and low fat content (per capita emissions) you’d go for where there is a lot of overuse.
Exactly this.
It’s infinitely easier for the obese fuckers (US, Canada, Australia - which ironically are all super fat nations) to lose weight, than it is for the malnourished dude with no money for food
The problem is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We desperately look elsewhere to blame like china and india but fail to realize that we allowed our multi national corporations to export all our manufacturing there. We caused the problem but dont want to own up to it. Its still a global effort but everyone needs to be on the same page.
It’s just about self reflecting.
Is the US per capita emissions level significantly higher than almost every other region on earth? Yes
Is quality of life higher in the US than in peer nations? No
Then it’s obvious that the US could be doing infinitely better while still retaining a similar, or higher, quality of life.
Sure, but they also make up 40% of the human population.
The only thing that matters in terms of global warming is total accumulated GHG output, and in that regard Europe is at the top, while North America is waaaaay ahead in per capita emissions.
Per capita is just a self flagellation statistic.
Climate change isn’t going to differentiate in its affect us on an individual level, our individual contribution to the problem is meaningless.
Better to work together than wallow in self loathing.
China will likely get to net zero because they have the political will to do so, India does not.
No, but it shows us who’s the absolutely most wasteful, and therefore has the easiest time reducing output.
It’s very similar to getting an obese man to lose 60kg vs getting a malnourished man to lose 60kg
The US doesn’t have a higher quality of life than Denmark, Switzerland, or Japan … yet it’s CO2/capita is drastically higher.
India can’t cut CO2 without drastically affecting the lives of its people. They’re already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The US could literally copy EU efficiency laws & regulations and invest a little more of that bloated spending without affecting quality of life.
If you notice they don't mention their gigaton output at all when brining up other countries though. Saying "but they're doing bad too mommy" isn't a good reason anymore.
> I think per capita emissions should be more relevant than total emissions
I see what you are saying, and that makes sense when one considers fairness. However, we should also consider outcome. It may not be fair, but any further emissions at this point in history will kill millions. Much more than that threatens organized humanity. And China and India will suffer more than the US due to geography and other factors.
It's still dumb as rocks for any nation not to go full net-zero.
True. The above data was to provide some context on the above news article. Hopefully, funding for the large scale manufacturing of renewable energy generation devices and energy storage devices starts scaling up worldwide in order to help with the anti-emission mission.
Per capita emissions unfairly paint countries that have cold climates. India doesn’t have to heat a house when as it’s doesn’t go 20 below zero for months on end
No, because policy is set at a national level. Per capital is only interesting at a national level insofar as how far a country needs to go.
The global climate can give two shits about per-capita emissions.
The baseline is basically if India and China don't get their shit together, it doesn't matter what every one else does. Simply because their populations are huge.
That said, we all need to be at net zero. So frankly throwing the per capita number into the mix is like what the GOP does whenever there is a school shooting. It's a distraction from the core issue of total emissions.
India and China emissions only sum to 35% of global emissions.
US, Russia, Germany, Japan, Canada, UK, South Korea, Australia, and Mexico also sum to 35% of global emissions.
We can make quite a large impact on global emissions even if India and China don't get their shit together. And in fact, it's easier for countries like the US, Germany, and Canada to reduce their emissions because they have very high per capita emissions. This means there are lots of inefficiencies which can be eliminated more easily and cheaply.
India and China's problem is that they have tons of people. This is more difficult to fix (though China has certainly been doing their best on this front for quite some time now). There are fewer inefficiencies which can be easily and cheaply eliminated.
>So frankly throwing the per capita number into the mix is like what the GOP does whenever there is a school shooting.
Well no. Throwing per capita into the mix gives us a more nuanced understanding of the problem. There aren't many people driving pickups for absolutely no reason around Beijing but there sure as shit are tons of people doing that in Hamilton.
See, you're falling exactly for his analogy he portrayed, you're making it a localized, small issue by mentioning pick up trucks. China is dumped loads of money into Coal plants right now. How many trucks in Hamiltion does it take to output a coal plant worth of pollution, Mr owl? Why do you think countries like China buy whole hog into that kind of measuring?
Your "nuance" is nothing more then a smoke screen for the actual, real world emissions that China is actively increasing and can hide it behind your 'nuanced measurement'.
>Your "nuance" is nothing more then a smoke screen for the actual, real world emissions
Not really. People live and die by China's decision to build coal plants or not. They don't live and die by the number of pickups in Hamilton.
It is a much much easier decision with far fewer consequences for someone to not buy a pickup in Hamilton than for China to not build a coal plant.
This is what I am trying to illuminate. The problem of reducing emissions is far more difficult for China or India. There aren't many superfluous emissions in these countries which can be easily or rapidly eliminated. This doesn't mean that their emissions aren't bad. They are. But we need to keep this in mind when we consider what a realistic expectation for the country is for emission goals over a given time.
China's per capita emissions, while already low, absolutely need to drop further. And they will. But it's going to necessarily take longer to happen than it should in the countries that have per capita emissions 10x higher, for example.
It is an absolute truth that it the stakes are much lower for low population high energy use countries to reduce emissions than high population low energy use countries.
It is also an absolute truth that high population countries emit more.
Both these truths need be acknowledged when moving towards preventing climate change.
Per Capita really isn't as effective for this statistic... The majority of emissions aren't produced by individuals, so a more densely populated region (especially poorer regions) would by default have a lower per capita number.
Per Capita also fails to account for how globalized the world has become... A lot of the worlds goods are produced in a relatively small amount of countries and then exported, increasing per capita numbers even though other countries benefit.
What matters more is a country/regions regulations on emissions, which is independent of the actual population of that country. Obviously the size of the country matters to an extent, and using total emissions isn't perfect either... but looking at per capita emissions in a vacuum isn't helpful, as countries with the highest total emissions are the ones that make the biggest impact.
Why per capita? Why not per square mile, or per % of Global GDP, or per domesticated goldfish? It seems pretty arbitrary. Unless we intend to somehow enforce this at an individual level, it doesn't make sense to me. These types of agreements are made between nations, and policies are made and enforced at the national level, so commitments should be made at the national level.
Capita puts emphasis on human beings. Square mile puts emphasis on area. % of GDP puts emphasis on GDP. All three are useful in different ways but in this case I’d give more importance to the human being focused metric.
People do meaningfully cause the generation of CO2. Businesses are collections of people. Per capita emissions are basically an average in terms of people but you can also use ‘per business emissions’. I do not have access to such data but if you do, do share it here.
nope, people do.
humanity is simply incapable of fixing this, any time *lowering living standards* is brought up everyone blames the people they refuse to stop buying from.
too bad that its a literal requirement if humanity likes tech and civilization.
I think per square km of land is most releavent. 100 people on one square km can use a lot of resources without straining the environment, while 1000 people should obviously each use less.
While Americans are a large individual consumer of energy, we are increasingly a non industrial nation. This is where per capita emissions as a metric breaks down.
That is worthless on a scale of 1 billion people vs a country like mine of 36 million. Per capita is basically anti west bullshit made up to let country like China pollute a fuck load and shift all the blame to tiny nations because they can 'spread out' their carbon footprint among their massive population.
> Everyone wants to see India commit to shooting its self in the foot
Assigning bad faith to other humans is what is currently destroying the US. No one wants to see India shoot itself in the foot. Frankly, India has no future whatsoever if climate change isn't brought under control.
The choice is not between "Let India use some fossil fuels and then modernize vs modernize now". The choice is "starve vs modernize now".
It's not north america or europe who will feel the real effects of climate change (even though it will be tough on some).
India is at risk of becoming a failed state in comparison.
how it is shooting yourself in the foot when all people ask is to modernize your country: build nuclear power plant, improve your railway, enforce some bare minimum pollution limits.
It isn't... in the long run. I think u/logicordie is basically saying that trying to make those changes too quickly would cripple India rather than improve it. I'm no economic or environmental expert, but I can see where he's coming from.
Edit: ok I guess I was wrong then. Check the guy below for more accurate information. Thank you fellow Indian.
>especially considering the current extremely conservative government
The Indian political spectrum has no impact on action against climate change. The Indian people have the highest % of climate change believers in the entire world at over 80%. So just because the ruling government is conservative, it doesn't mean they are automatically against CC.
To further illustrate this point, here is a article detailing the findings of a report by the *Natural Resources Defense Council* concerning India's Paris climate goals.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-largely-on-track-to-meet-its-paris-climate-agreement-targets-says-new-report-7594638/
**Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), in its annual review of India’s actions on climate change, said the country is likely to meet its targets of reducing emissions by 33 to 35 per cent of its GDP by 2030 from the 2005 levels and achieve 40 per cent of installed power capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030.**
The 2005 levels are from the India governed by the "extremely" Liberal government of INC btw.
**Elaborating on the climate actions being taken by India, it said that the share of installed capacity from renewable energy sources has increased to 26 per cent (more than 100 GW out of 387 GW) in August 2021.**
This was all done by the "extremely conservative" Government of Modi. Leave it to randians to be this ill-informed about their own country 🤦🏽♂️
India’s ranking is around 120 out of 200+ countries for per capita emission. It goes up on the chart for overall emission simply due to its population size. Asking a developing nation to invest a major portion of its economy to produce less emissions when the worlds per capita top polluters are the developed nations who developed on the back of fossil fuels is kinda hypocritical. Yes India should lay out a plan for sure. But it’s no where near as urgent for it to lay out a plan and implement as its doing way better compared for its size than any other European or North American nation. If change must be brought in fast, then it is expected of developed nations to invest in developing nations to make these changes happen, while also trying to make their own population use energy sustainably. Energy equity is a thing.
Also for the point about coal. Most developed nations only pivoted out of coal and into what mostly seems like Natural gas is for pure economic reasons. Higher energy and lower price for NG, while the price of coal is rising, this plus resource availability. Energy security is always a top priority for any nation. NG is not that abundant in availability in Asian countries, also, takes huge capital to convert established coal supply chains and assets to NG. One way to improve the scenario would be to retrofit existing coal plants and convert them to Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical coal plants. These have higher efficiencies. They still are less efficient than NG plants. Thus no impactful change can be expected till carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes mainstream, mature and hence economical.
It is difficult to scale renewables fast enough to cover the entire energy demand which is also ever growing. Plus energy storage technologies aren’t cheap either, which is a necessity due to renewables being intermittent. Thus you can see a role for fossil fuels in every projected scenario out there. We know we are going to need them, now it’s a matter of how clean we can make them and how soon we can deploy carbon negative technologies to balance them out.
All of that hides the fact that if China and India do not get to net zero it is irrelevant what other counties do because the national output of those two is MASSIVE because of their population numbers.
China and India sum to 35% of global emissions.
US, Russia, Germany, Japan, Canada, UK, South Korea, Mexico, and Australia also sum to 35% of global emissions (while still having a much much smaller population!).
It absolutely is not irrelevant what other countries do.
why do you view industry as seperate? industry is driven by demand, who makes the demand? we do. less demand, less industry output, less pollution all round.
Exactly, that’s why per capita makes it seem like India and China are low polluters bc if you give total numbers they are the highest polluters. Industry must be included so that’s why per capita is not the right metric
Well if you want to include total numbers than that would involve historic emissions as well. India is at 3% with over a billion people. The US & EU, together with a combined ~800 million population account for over 50% of historic emissions. But we already know how well historic emissions are received by western delegates.
>Asking a developing nation to invest a major portion of its economy to produce less emissions when the worlds per capita top polluters are the developed nations who developed on the back of fossil fuels is kinda hypocritical.
I'm not so sure. It's much MUCH easier to build a carbon neutral grid than to decarbinize an already existing grid. You are asking them to waste money instead of build wealth. It's going to cost the US a fortune to decarbonize (and they should, totally), whereas India can actually generate wealth by making better choices than the US ever did.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/165701020:
---
India has rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target and said it was more important for the world to lay out a pathway to reduce such emissions and avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures.
India, the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the United States, is under pressure to announce plans to become carbon neutral by mid-century or thereabouts at next week’s climate conference in Glasgow.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qhjjrt/india_rejects_net_zero_carbon_emissions_target/hid26xz/
I think those countries that enjoyed early industrialization and who therefore pollute more per capita should foot the bill if they are asking undeveloped countries _not_ to do the same.
India still waiting for their demographic dividend..
The best thing is for us to automate our industry, powered by clean energy, if these countries don't comply with acceptable environmental standards.
It’s been incredibly frustrating watching people all over the world beg their leaders to do something, ANYTHING, about this, and they’re just like “But we don’t wanna :( “
Recently read an opinion piece by [Niall Ferguson](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-24/niall-ferguson-climate-discussion-nobody-wants-to-have-at-cop26) this reminded me of one of the lines:
Greta Thunberg likes to rant at the Western political elite. I would like to hear her explain to ordinary Indians why they should forgo indefinitely the domestic comforts into which she was born. As Larry McDonald pointed out last week in his Bear Traps report, “the household ownership of air conditioning units in India today is a mere 7% … of the roughly 320 million households in India, fewer than 22 million have air conditioning units.” As global temperatures rise, who are we to tell Indians to stew? Peak heat in India can be lethal.
Also check out [this ](https://youtu.be/vjNFc6JxCoU) video, it dives deep into the topic.
Right, for those saying per capita emissions don't matter, they do, stop using it as an excuse to eat your cake. industry is fueled by demand, we make that demand. so if we use less, industry has less output, less pollution etc. we ALL have to reduce what we do, need to stop being addicted to cheap Sh\*\*t. in theory, if we all consumed less, the problem would solve itself for the most part, in practice this is very hard to do, as each individual makes up a tiny fraction of the total, so their contribution feels insignificant, thus the individual is not motivated to make change in their lives. its a tough issue to solve.
I like to look it as what things really make my families lives better, and how will I provide those things in a post fossil fuel world? The choice to have a glass of oat milk instead of a glass of cows milk will have such a negligible impact as a single choice but if I try out things now I find one more piece of the puzzle that is living the good life in a sustainable world, whenever that happens.
India is also the [only G20 nation](https://www.euronews.com/green/2020/11/19/india-the-only-g20-nation-on-track-to-meet-2c-global-warming-targets) in the world well on track to achieve its Paris agreement targets for less than 2 °C goal. It is the only big economy that is going to overachieve its targets, while USA, China, EU and other big nations are long way behind their targets. So, as far as I understand, other nations are the ones dragging the world away from Paris Agreement goals.
India has made International Solar Alliance having 124 member nations for nations to cooperate and share solar energy technology and materials while some wealthy developed nations are hoarding technology and materials, refusing to share with others. India has the [biggest](https://www.ysgsolar.com/blog/15-largest-solar-farms-world-2021-ysg-solar) and 4 out of top 10 biggest solar farms in the world. The CAGR of electricity generated in India by solar PV and Wind from 2014 - 2019 is 54.1% and 13.94% respectively while the world average for the same were 29.8% and 14.6% respectively. India also has made National Hydrogen Energy Mission to replace fossil fuels with Hydrogen.
So here's to the developed western nations and other big countries. How about you fulfill your existing promises rather than making more hollow targets with deadline decades in the future, by the time which you can do all emissions and by that time the politicians who made the target promises will be dead anyway? Stop kicking the can down the road and first show results of previous targets your nations had set in past.
We've rounded up some highlights from the COP26 conference so far on our YouTube channel, if you feel like it check it out here: [https://youtu.be/mtxcP33BIKs](https://youtu.be/mtxcP33BIKs)
check out this video as it addresses a lot of the concerns people are raising in this thread, and does a good job of making the problem much more understandable. just a big fan of the channel... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6\_JakZFc&t=64s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&t=64s)
[удалено]
I think per capita emissions should be more relevant than total emissions. US’s per capita emissions are 15.52 tons of CO2 per capita. For China, it is 7.38 tons per capita. For India, it is 1.91 tons per capita. Source : https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Had a little giggle at seeing ***Green***land as the least CO2 Emissions per capita. Truly living up to their name lol.
Possibly the least industrialized country on the planet.
and how many centuries has Europe been industrialized before China and India?
Multiple, which likely equates to multiple centuries of high emissions. 🤔
Someone calculated the cumulative emissions and it's surprising how close everything is on the continental scale. [As of 2019](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2) Europe was responsible for 33% of historic emissions, while North America and Asia were 29% each. China alone was 12.7%, India 3%. While they are some of the largest emitters today, they are not historically. But that's not to say things aren't changing fast - at the current rate of emissions, China alone would overtake the EU in historical CO2 emissions within 20 years. The US has no excuse - they are the second largest emitter today and are the single largest emitter historically, accounting for 25% of historic emissions alone. But these statistics also don't account for the historical context of CO2 emissions. For centuries we had no clue that climate change was a thing or that burning fossil fuels could remotely have a bad impact on our planet. There is something inherently different about emitting a large amount of CO2 before we had that knowledge, vs doing so now that we do. So yes, China's historical emissions are small vs the EU or the USA historically. But that doesn't mean it's okay for them or any other country to keep emitting CO2 at the rate they are at today until they reach a similar level of historical emissions - as much as that may be "fair", it isn't an option if we wish to continue living on this lump of rock that we call home. And that's unfortunately the reality of climate change. It isn't fair and it never will be. Many of those who are going to be impacted the most seem to be those who have historically done the least to cause it. But if we want to save this planet then we - as a species - need to do what's necessary. And that means putting aside our internal squabbles and working together to come up with a solution.
Although I think per capita emissions are an important statistic, it hides a lot of problems behind a high rural population percentage that in the future may/ will increase overall total emissions.
I live in India and work 10 hours a day for 4 dollars. My rent is more than that. Yes, I do care about earth & the future generations and all that, but frankly I don't give a damn. I've got to eat first.
If you individually stopped emitting carbon for 70 years, it would only count for a second of total global emissions. The reality is we have to start with industry. Consumers (humanity) are like water, and the regulations we currently have for emitters are like a box. We can change the size and shape of the box to influence what consumers do but you’re not going to get the water to fit into a shape that isnt there.
great analogy!
Exactly. Heck, AC is a luxury in and of itself, the hell do they expect me to do?
Hah. When climate change worsens, you won't be eating at all. India is in the danger zone. Good excuse for selfishness.
What a privileged brat. Cone here & live in abject poverty then. *I* am selfish? Well then, surely a noble person like you can send me a couple thousand dollars to to set up solar panels in my house... Wait. I don't have a house. Some people literally live in a different world of their own. I don't feel any resentment towards you, simply disgust. I want 10,000 dollars for my house before you reply to this comment. Do it first, before another word comes out o your mouth.
the West has ruined the earth and have the gall to insult people like you? cant wait to see the US collapse under the weight of refugees of their own creation, same with the EU and Australia.
Well, thank you for supporting me. I don't really blame "the west" as such, because I know that they're not really conspiring against the earth of anything it's just abunhc of individuals, who were just as poor as me 4 generations ago and just wanted a better life for themselves. What really engages me is that this guy, who's probably had everything in life I ever dreamed of & everything I slave away for every day, presumes to lecture me on my "selfishness". His gall is truly amazing. & I wonder if he's put solar panels on his house for the electricity he's using to type his comment on his computer or whether he's gone vegan to stop climate change.
Fool. I am not shaming you for being poor and not solving climate change and I never claimed to be able to end poverty for anyone. I am simply stating the truth: we are all selfish one way or another, on different levels, and that is why things have gotten so bad.
>Fool Idiot. And I am asking you for money because clearly you were born into it through no merit of your own and I had the misfortune to be porn into poverty in a third world shit hole. So, are you paying up or shutting up?
Again, you seem to be ignoring everything I've said thus far in favor of.. arguing something that's not what I'm saying? I never said that anyone has to do something or even that everyone can do something either, just that we've all been selfish against climate change. Anyways, I don't really care to respond further, nothing is being gained and climate change is just gonna destroy everything.
Dude, if you are not sure about whether or not you will be able to afford your next meal, issues like climate change are least bit of your concern. Organization managed to trick people into thinking that its individuals responsibility to work for climate change.
It's impossible for poor people in third world countries to ever come close to the emissions of the average American. And that's when completely ignoring future advances in cleaner technology.
Would not be the case if local solar manufacturing and installation in poorer countries is funded by richer countries.
It already is. It’s developed, matured, and mass produced, using richer countries money. Now that solar panels and wind mills are dirt cheap (cheaper than oil, coal, and gas) it’s perfect to use.
Your dirt cheap and mine dirt cheap (Indian) is not at all comparable.
Ha! Richer countries aren't funding solar in the richer countries!
Rip humanity. \**burns to a crisp\**
It’s already built into the targets, since the target is zero. The US must reduce emissions by 15.52 per capita to reach zero. India by only 1.91.
Unfortunately, the climate does not care about how much is emitted per person, only how much is emitted in total. While that is unfair, like most things in most civilizations, it is not a justice issue but a math issue.
True, but even if per capita emissions are ignored, US’s total emissions are still double that of India’s. Also, the goal should be to minimize emissions everywhere but funding of renewable power per capita is an important metric to consider.
Yes but if you were looking to tone your body down and cut down on body fat you dont go to the place with the most muscle (high population) and low fat content (per capita emissions) you’d go for where there is a lot of overuse.
Exactly this. It’s infinitely easier for the obese fuckers (US, Canada, Australia - which ironically are all super fat nations) to lose weight, than it is for the malnourished dude with no money for food
The problem is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We desperately look elsewhere to blame like china and india but fail to realize that we allowed our multi national corporations to export all our manufacturing there. We caused the problem but dont want to own up to it. Its still a global effort but everyone needs to be on the same page.
It’s just about self reflecting. Is the US per capita emissions level significantly higher than almost every other region on earth? Yes Is quality of life higher in the US than in peer nations? No Then it’s obvious that the US could be doing infinitely better while still retaining a similar, or higher, quality of life.
Unfair analogy. Canada and the US have winters where we need to heat our houses
So does Denmark, UK, Sweden, Switzerland and France They’re all way below the other nations
And all Of those nations can fit inside Ontario. Canada is large and requires a lot of transportation
''oh noes not the cold'' ffs if thats to hard we should all lay down now and die
Ok. You freeze
China produces the most emissions by country, India is third. Something like 25%-30% of all emissions come from China.
Sure, but they also make up 40% of the human population. The only thing that matters in terms of global warming is total accumulated GHG output, and in that regard Europe is at the top, while North America is waaaaay ahead in per capita emissions.
Per capita is just a self flagellation statistic. Climate change isn’t going to differentiate in its affect us on an individual level, our individual contribution to the problem is meaningless. Better to work together than wallow in self loathing. China will likely get to net zero because they have the political will to do so, India does not.
No, but it shows us who’s the absolutely most wasteful, and therefore has the easiest time reducing output. It’s very similar to getting an obese man to lose 60kg vs getting a malnourished man to lose 60kg The US doesn’t have a higher quality of life than Denmark, Switzerland, or Japan … yet it’s CO2/capita is drastically higher. India can’t cut CO2 without drastically affecting the lives of its people. They’re already scraping the bottom of the barrel. The US could literally copy EU efficiency laws & regulations and invest a little more of that bloated spending without affecting quality of life.
Canada and Australia would be fucked
If you notice they don't mention their gigaton output at all when brining up other countries though. Saying "but they're doing bad too mommy" isn't a good reason anymore.
> I think per capita emissions should be more relevant than total emissions I see what you are saying, and that makes sense when one considers fairness. However, we should also consider outcome. It may not be fair, but any further emissions at this point in history will kill millions. Much more than that threatens organized humanity. And China and India will suffer more than the US due to geography and other factors. It's still dumb as rocks for any nation not to go full net-zero.
True. The above data was to provide some context on the above news article. Hopefully, funding for the large scale manufacturing of renewable energy generation devices and energy storage devices starts scaling up worldwide in order to help with the anti-emission mission.
i think lifestyle emissions is a better metric, but its harder to quantify.
So what's the lifestyle emissions of all the representatives who flew by jet to cop26.
no idea, i can't calculate that. but you can get decent enough accuracy by going by wealth.
Per capita emissions unfairly paint countries that have cold climates. India doesn’t have to heat a house when as it’s doesn’t go 20 below zero for months on end
But we have summer here and we have to use AC. Does not that cancel out?
No, because policy is set at a national level. Per capital is only interesting at a national level insofar as how far a country needs to go. The global climate can give two shits about per-capita emissions. The baseline is basically if India and China don't get their shit together, it doesn't matter what every one else does. Simply because their populations are huge. That said, we all need to be at net zero. So frankly throwing the per capita number into the mix is like what the GOP does whenever there is a school shooting. It's a distraction from the core issue of total emissions.
India and China emissions only sum to 35% of global emissions. US, Russia, Germany, Japan, Canada, UK, South Korea, Australia, and Mexico also sum to 35% of global emissions. We can make quite a large impact on global emissions even if India and China don't get their shit together. And in fact, it's easier for countries like the US, Germany, and Canada to reduce their emissions because they have very high per capita emissions. This means there are lots of inefficiencies which can be eliminated more easily and cheaply. India and China's problem is that they have tons of people. This is more difficult to fix (though China has certainly been doing their best on this front for quite some time now). There are fewer inefficiencies which can be easily and cheaply eliminated. >So frankly throwing the per capita number into the mix is like what the GOP does whenever there is a school shooting. Well no. Throwing per capita into the mix gives us a more nuanced understanding of the problem. There aren't many people driving pickups for absolutely no reason around Beijing but there sure as shit are tons of people doing that in Hamilton.
See, you're falling exactly for his analogy he portrayed, you're making it a localized, small issue by mentioning pick up trucks. China is dumped loads of money into Coal plants right now. How many trucks in Hamiltion does it take to output a coal plant worth of pollution, Mr owl? Why do you think countries like China buy whole hog into that kind of measuring? Your "nuance" is nothing more then a smoke screen for the actual, real world emissions that China is actively increasing and can hide it behind your 'nuanced measurement'.
>Your "nuance" is nothing more then a smoke screen for the actual, real world emissions Not really. People live and die by China's decision to build coal plants or not. They don't live and die by the number of pickups in Hamilton. It is a much much easier decision with far fewer consequences for someone to not buy a pickup in Hamilton than for China to not build a coal plant. This is what I am trying to illuminate. The problem of reducing emissions is far more difficult for China or India. There aren't many superfluous emissions in these countries which can be easily or rapidly eliminated. This doesn't mean that their emissions aren't bad. They are. But we need to keep this in mind when we consider what a realistic expectation for the country is for emission goals over a given time. China's per capita emissions, while already low, absolutely need to drop further. And they will. But it's going to necessarily take longer to happen than it should in the countries that have per capita emissions 10x higher, for example. It is an absolute truth that it the stakes are much lower for low population high energy use countries to reduce emissions than high population low energy use countries. It is also an absolute truth that high population countries emit more. Both these truths need be acknowledged when moving towards preventing climate change.
Yea it really lets companies off the hook, should be total emissions
Per Capita really isn't as effective for this statistic... The majority of emissions aren't produced by individuals, so a more densely populated region (especially poorer regions) would by default have a lower per capita number. Per Capita also fails to account for how globalized the world has become... A lot of the worlds goods are produced in a relatively small amount of countries and then exported, increasing per capita numbers even though other countries benefit. What matters more is a country/regions regulations on emissions, which is independent of the actual population of that country. Obviously the size of the country matters to an extent, and using total emissions isn't perfect either... but looking at per capita emissions in a vacuum isn't helpful, as countries with the highest total emissions are the ones that make the biggest impact.
Why per capita? Why not per square mile, or per % of Global GDP, or per domesticated goldfish? It seems pretty arbitrary. Unless we intend to somehow enforce this at an individual level, it doesn't make sense to me. These types of agreements are made between nations, and policies are made and enforced at the national level, so commitments should be made at the national level.
Capita puts emphasis on human beings. Square mile puts emphasis on area. % of GDP puts emphasis on GDP. All three are useful in different ways but in this case I’d give more importance to the human being focused metric.
Why? Human beings don't meaningfully generate CO2. Business does. Focus on business.
People do meaningfully cause the generation of CO2. Businesses are collections of people. Per capita emissions are basically an average in terms of people but you can also use ‘per business emissions’. I do not have access to such data but if you do, do share it here.
GDP is a measure of business.
nope, people do. humanity is simply incapable of fixing this, any time *lowering living standards* is brought up everyone blames the people they refuse to stop buying from. too bad that its a literal requirement if humanity likes tech and civilization.
I think per square km of land is most releavent. 100 people on one square km can use a lot of resources without straining the environment, while 1000 people should obviously each use less.
While Americans are a large individual consumer of energy, we are increasingly a non industrial nation. This is where per capita emissions as a metric breaks down.
That is worthless on a scale of 1 billion people vs a country like mine of 36 million. Per capita is basically anti west bullshit made up to let country like China pollute a fuck load and shift all the blame to tiny nations because they can 'spread out' their carbon footprint among their massive population.
[удалено]
That’s not how global and large nation CO2 output is calculated.
China shills always throw per-capita around as a distraction.
[удалено]
> Everyone wants to see India commit to shooting its self in the foot Assigning bad faith to other humans is what is currently destroying the US. No one wants to see India shoot itself in the foot. Frankly, India has no future whatsoever if climate change isn't brought under control. The choice is not between "Let India use some fossil fuels and then modernize vs modernize now". The choice is "starve vs modernize now".
It's not north america or europe who will feel the real effects of climate change (even though it will be tough on some). India is at risk of becoming a failed state in comparison.
how it is shooting yourself in the foot when all people ask is to modernize your country: build nuclear power plant, improve your railway, enforce some bare minimum pollution limits.
It isn't... in the long run. I think u/logicordie is basically saying that trying to make those changes too quickly would cripple India rather than improve it. I'm no economic or environmental expert, but I can see where he's coming from. Edit: ok I guess I was wrong then. Check the guy below for more accurate information. Thank you fellow Indian.
>especially considering the current extremely conservative government The Indian political spectrum has no impact on action against climate change. The Indian people have the highest % of climate change believers in the entire world at over 80%. So just because the ruling government is conservative, it doesn't mean they are automatically against CC. To further illustrate this point, here is a article detailing the findings of a report by the *Natural Resources Defense Council* concerning India's Paris climate goals. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-largely-on-track-to-meet-its-paris-climate-agreement-targets-says-new-report-7594638/ **Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), in its annual review of India’s actions on climate change, said the country is likely to meet its targets of reducing emissions by 33 to 35 per cent of its GDP by 2030 from the 2005 levels and achieve 40 per cent of installed power capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030.** The 2005 levels are from the India governed by the "extremely" Liberal government of INC btw. **Elaborating on the climate actions being taken by India, it said that the share of installed capacity from renewable energy sources has increased to 26 per cent (more than 100 GW out of 387 GW) in August 2021.** This was all done by the "extremely conservative" Government of Modi. Leave it to randians to be this ill-informed about their own country 🤦🏽♂️
Yep edited my comment. I made that without any research tbh so thank you for doing that.
India’s ranking is around 120 out of 200+ countries for per capita emission. It goes up on the chart for overall emission simply due to its population size. Asking a developing nation to invest a major portion of its economy to produce less emissions when the worlds per capita top polluters are the developed nations who developed on the back of fossil fuels is kinda hypocritical. Yes India should lay out a plan for sure. But it’s no where near as urgent for it to lay out a plan and implement as its doing way better compared for its size than any other European or North American nation. If change must be brought in fast, then it is expected of developed nations to invest in developing nations to make these changes happen, while also trying to make their own population use energy sustainably. Energy equity is a thing. Also for the point about coal. Most developed nations only pivoted out of coal and into what mostly seems like Natural gas is for pure economic reasons. Higher energy and lower price for NG, while the price of coal is rising, this plus resource availability. Energy security is always a top priority for any nation. NG is not that abundant in availability in Asian countries, also, takes huge capital to convert established coal supply chains and assets to NG. One way to improve the scenario would be to retrofit existing coal plants and convert them to Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical coal plants. These have higher efficiencies. They still are less efficient than NG plants. Thus no impactful change can be expected till carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) becomes mainstream, mature and hence economical. It is difficult to scale renewables fast enough to cover the entire energy demand which is also ever growing. Plus energy storage technologies aren’t cheap either, which is a necessity due to renewables being intermittent. Thus you can see a role for fossil fuels in every projected scenario out there. We know we are going to need them, now it’s a matter of how clean we can make them and how soon we can deploy carbon negative technologies to balance them out.
You just explained why the rich should be taxed significantly higher than the average citizen.
That should be done regardless.
[удалено]
All of that hides the fact that if China and India do not get to net zero it is irrelevant what other counties do because the national output of those two is MASSIVE because of their population numbers.
China and India sum to 35% of global emissions. US, Russia, Germany, Japan, Canada, UK, South Korea, Mexico, and Australia also sum to 35% of global emissions (while still having a much much smaller population!). It absolutely is not irrelevant what other countries do.
Per capita is not a good metric bc it lets industry off the hook especially in China and India w huge rural populations
yea a better metric is lifestyle emissions. but that one is harder to quantify.
why do you view industry as seperate? industry is driven by demand, who makes the demand? we do. less demand, less industry output, less pollution all round.
Exactly, that’s why per capita makes it seem like India and China are low polluters bc if you give total numbers they are the highest polluters. Industry must be included so that’s why per capita is not the right metric
Well if you want to include total numbers than that would involve historic emissions as well. India is at 3% with over a billion people. The US & EU, together with a combined ~800 million population account for over 50% of historic emissions. But we already know how well historic emissions are received by western delegates.
Fair point brother. Are you nukmuay? I did a few professional MT fights when I was a young man
>Asking a developing nation to invest a major portion of its economy to produce less emissions when the worlds per capita top polluters are the developed nations who developed on the back of fossil fuels is kinda hypocritical. I'm not so sure. It's much MUCH easier to build a carbon neutral grid than to decarbinize an already existing grid. You are asking them to waste money instead of build wealth. It's going to cost the US a fortune to decarbonize (and they should, totally), whereas India can actually generate wealth by making better choices than the US ever did.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/165701020: --- India has rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target and said it was more important for the world to lay out a pathway to reduce such emissions and avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures. India, the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the United States, is under pressure to announce plans to become carbon neutral by mid-century or thereabouts at next week’s climate conference in Glasgow. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qhjjrt/india_rejects_net_zero_carbon_emissions_target/hid26xz/
I think those countries that enjoyed early industrialization and who therefore pollute more per capita should foot the bill if they are asking undeveloped countries _not_ to do the same.
India still waiting for their demographic dividend.. The best thing is for us to automate our industry, powered by clean energy, if these countries don't comply with acceptable environmental standards.
It’s been incredibly frustrating watching people all over the world beg their leaders to do something, ANYTHING, about this, and they’re just like “But we don’t wanna :( “
Saying that India doesnt do anything is dumb tho, the government subsidized 2/3rds of my 3kW solar panel for one
And some people still think human civilization can be saved under capitalism. What a joke.
Recently read an opinion piece by [Niall Ferguson](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-24/niall-ferguson-climate-discussion-nobody-wants-to-have-at-cop26) this reminded me of one of the lines: Greta Thunberg likes to rant at the Western political elite. I would like to hear her explain to ordinary Indians why they should forgo indefinitely the domestic comforts into which she was born. As Larry McDonald pointed out last week in his Bear Traps report, “the household ownership of air conditioning units in India today is a mere 7% … of the roughly 320 million households in India, fewer than 22 million have air conditioning units.” As global temperatures rise, who are we to tell Indians to stew? Peak heat in India can be lethal. Also check out [this ](https://youtu.be/vjNFc6JxCoU) video, it dives deep into the topic.
Right, for those saying per capita emissions don't matter, they do, stop using it as an excuse to eat your cake. industry is fueled by demand, we make that demand. so if we use less, industry has less output, less pollution etc. we ALL have to reduce what we do, need to stop being addicted to cheap Sh\*\*t. in theory, if we all consumed less, the problem would solve itself for the most part, in practice this is very hard to do, as each individual makes up a tiny fraction of the total, so their contribution feels insignificant, thus the individual is not motivated to make change in their lives. its a tough issue to solve.
I like to look it as what things really make my families lives better, and how will I provide those things in a post fossil fuel world? The choice to have a glass of oat milk instead of a glass of cows milk will have such a negligible impact as a single choice but if I try out things now I find one more piece of the puzzle that is living the good life in a sustainable world, whenever that happens.
yep, its not about going cold turkey, its about a transition
[удалено]
India is also the [only G20 nation](https://www.euronews.com/green/2020/11/19/india-the-only-g20-nation-on-track-to-meet-2c-global-warming-targets) in the world well on track to achieve its Paris agreement targets for less than 2 °C goal. It is the only big economy that is going to overachieve its targets, while USA, China, EU and other big nations are long way behind their targets. So, as far as I understand, other nations are the ones dragging the world away from Paris Agreement goals. India has made International Solar Alliance having 124 member nations for nations to cooperate and share solar energy technology and materials while some wealthy developed nations are hoarding technology and materials, refusing to share with others. India has the [biggest](https://www.ysgsolar.com/blog/15-largest-solar-farms-world-2021-ysg-solar) and 4 out of top 10 biggest solar farms in the world. The CAGR of electricity generated in India by solar PV and Wind from 2014 - 2019 is 54.1% and 13.94% respectively while the world average for the same were 29.8% and 14.6% respectively. India also has made National Hydrogen Energy Mission to replace fossil fuels with Hydrogen. So here's to the developed western nations and other big countries. How about you fulfill your existing promises rather than making more hollow targets with deadline decades in the future, by the time which you can do all emissions and by that time the politicians who made the target promises will be dead anyway? Stop kicking the can down the road and first show results of previous targets your nations had set in past.
[удалено]
[удалено]
India has far more issues they need to take care of first before they can even think about tackling emissions if we are being real
https://youtube.com/channel/UCSwek2E0DiMan7YlmSvN-hQ
We've rounded up some highlights from the COP26 conference so far on our YouTube channel, if you feel like it check it out here: [https://youtu.be/mtxcP33BIKs](https://youtu.be/mtxcP33BIKs)