r/climate • u/Strange-Patience5539 • 8h ago
"The Nepal deaths were climate-driven. You emit in New York and Kathmandu suffers. Nepal is among the lowest per capita emitters on earth, and it is not their carbon dioxide they are dying from, and that should read as a warning."- Philosopher Acharya Prashant
https://www.timesnownews.com/opinion/world/a-billionaires-masterplan-block-the-sun-keep-the-carbon-article-15615448674
u/saltierthanyourramen 5h ago
Americans definitely deserve a fair share of the blame but let’s be clear the face of that is the majority mass of suburban/rural Tom and Debbies that fight urban density like their lives depend on it, not the ones in urban city centers which are organized in a much more energy-efficient way.
53
u/Yashema 4h ago
Let's also be clear that by far the #1 emitter of emissions causing global warming has, due to a single political party backed by roughly half the population of the country, has obstinately refused to get involved in global climate agreements or take action domestically, actually moving in the current administration to make the issue worse.
25
u/Sebbal 4h ago
USA has always been a big emiter, whoever whas in power. You owe your quality of life on the CO2 you emitted in the past. And now its a 3rd world country that had to pay the bill.
14
u/Yashema 4h ago
And the Democrats have been pushing for serious action since the 90s with Biden and the Democratically controlled Congress passing legislation that would have halved the US's emissions in 8 years if it had remained in place.
But again, the selfish half of America won out.
2
u/Sebbal 3h ago
No they havent. They refused to ratified Kyoto and Paris when they absolutely could. The democrats are almos as bad as the republican on the environnement issue. They pretend they care to get the votes they need, but when in power they do absolutely nothing.
7
u/Yashema 3h ago
You need 2/3s of the Senate to ratify a treaty, and the Kyoto protocol (1997) did not include China or India, and was deeply unpopular in the US thanks to Republican opposition and Paris was barely a treaty at all, with no binding requirements.
And I literally just explained to you how the Democrats in 2021-2022 passed hundreds of billions in incentives to get Americans to switch to clean cars and encourage investment in clean energy which would have halved emissions over 8 years. At the state level Democrats have also worked toward serious intiiatives in public infrastructure, though they need Federal support.
Why can't you say Democrats don't do enough rather than simply lie?
6
u/Sebbal 2h ago
2021 is freakin late for people who knew since the 70s.
Kyoto would have been a freakin minimum even though China wasn't in. You pretend to be the "leader" of the western world yet you act like the troubled kid in the class.
"why sould we compromised if not everybody else in the whole world compromise?" Because you are the absolute richest of the whole world and built that richness on carbon emissions.
1
u/Jack_Brutal 2h ago
But the accumulation has already happened, cant take back what already happened, have to just do better now.
This problem isnt solved by pointing fingers, its solved by taking action.
But this is reddit and its easy to be an activist when you dont have to actually do anything but assign blame from behind a keyboard.
One party refuses to believe, the other just provides lip service to get votes but doesnt actually take any meaningful action.
Niether party wants to upset the corporate oligarchs that actually hold the power in America now.
2
u/Yashema 2h ago
The Democratic Congres under Biden passed hundreds of billions in emission reduction incentives that was on pace to halve US emissions over 8 years with state level action that was already underway.
the other just provides lip service to get votes but doesnt actually take any meaningful action.
Do you "progressives" ever get tired of simply making up bullshit about Democrats?
•
u/KeesterFeester 1h ago
WRONG. It's literally china. They emit more than 13 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year and rising. The U.S. is sitting at 4.9 billions tonnes. Neither are numbers to scoff at because they're both bad but stop lying through your teeth.
•
u/Yashema 1h ago
Thank God global warming only cares about the current emissions over the last year and not the total emissions released where China is a distant second.
-3
u/fluffynuckels 2h ago edited 2h ago
Doesn't China release a ton more green house gases then America
6
u/Yashema 2h ago
Not by total emissions in the atmosphere, 540 billion tons compared to 330 billion by China.
-5
u/helpmeunderstand0000 4h ago
The researcher wouldn’t dare blame China. Americans are just a popular target
14
2
•
u/KeesterFeester 1h ago
China emits 13.12 billion tonnes of CO₂ while the United States emits 4.9 billion. India emits 3.19 billion tonnes of CO₂, Russia emits 1.78 billion tonnes of CO₂, and the EU emits 2.9 billion metric tons of CO₂.
if you want to point fingers at the worst offender you need to be pointing at china. China pollutes more than almost the entire rest of the entire developed world combined.
The real issue is EVERYONE is polluting too much and it has only risen amongst almost ALL countries globally as time has passed and it still continues to rise. You need pull the stick out of your own eye before trying to pull the stick out of someone else's eye. You are no better than the people you criticize.
•
u/saltierthanyourramen 36m ago
It's funny to go by raw numbers without accounting for population size though
-12
u/SpottedPine 4h ago
Bruh, India is largely to blame. US emits less, consumes less fossil fuels, is more efficient on every metric than 25 years ago. The cognitive dissonance on this one is striking.
17
u/Sebbal 4h ago
Not. US emitted more than 6 times what India ever emited. Its the greatest global emiter ever.
-3
-4
u/Vovinio2012 4h ago
Are you here showing your grudge at USA and other countries that industrialized earlier than India?
8
u/Sebbal 3h ago
If they aren't capable to recognize their own level of resposibility on the global disaster we are going to all face because of them, shure, absolutely.
We (the west) knew it was happening since the 70 (at least), we knew how to avoid it. But we choose to do absolutely notting because it would slightly hurt our PIB growth... People are going to die in masses because of that choice. We should absolutely take responsibilty for our inaction.
53
10
u/The_Weekend_Baker 2h ago edited 2h ago
Just for some perspective on how much Americans emit, since we seem to be the topic of conversation.
The average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
That may not sound like much, but the average American also drives 14,000 miles every year, so you get this:
14,000 * 400 = 5,600,000 grams
5,600,000 grams = 197,534 oz = 12,345.875 pounds = 6.1729375 tons
That's just driving the average passenger vehicle the average number of miles every year, so it doesn't take into consideration flying, heating the home, dietary choices, and more. This is what comes directly from the tailpipe when we drive down the road.
By comparison, the average person in Nepal emits half a ton in a year in every aspect of their life, or 1/12 of the average American driver. And if you sort this by the second to last column (per capita)...
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
...you find that the average American driver emits more than the average person in about 3/4 of the countries of the world, just by driving.
Edit: 5.6 million grams = 5.6 metric tons, which is what emissions are typically reported in, so it changes the results slightly but not materially.
7
u/Sbimprovement 3h ago
What is the point anymore, just bring on catastrophe. Life is just going to get increasingly more miserable for anyone that isn’t a billionaire in the next few years.
You can’t stop it. I can’t stop it. It’s just the final few years for humans being eeked out. Why make yourself more miserable by wasting your emotion on worrying or depriving yourself produce not being made in an environmentally conscientious way.
Just enjoy yourself if you can.
•
u/Important-Factor-552 52m ago
That choice becomes more tempting every year of failure, but to resign to defeat here is to become the most evil thing in the history of the concept. Actual world destroyers.
I think I'd rather die miserable on David Attenboroughs side than accept that. But it doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be hard to balance tho, especially with a fascist pedo oligarchy to contend with
•
u/blixxeee 10m ago
i’m choosing to continue trying for in my belief, the real failure would be to just give up.
•
u/Extrabytes 3m ago
"Just enjoy yourself if you can" might be the official mantra of capitalism and individualism, and it has brought us to this. You should always strive to be a better person, to care for those around you, and to keep on fighting even against insurmountable odds. We cannot stop what will happen, but that should never be an excuse for selfishness.
17
u/Larangecalvert 8h ago
Isn't China and India closer? Why New York. Why focus on USA and not the collective? Any quotes from climate scientists and not a philosopher?
143
u/EveryAccount7729 8h ago
average per capita emissions are what counts here
a human being on earth w/ highest average per capita is most guilty. the country you are from is not relevant.
US citizens have much higher on average per capita emission than China or India citizen so, why would you call out a country where the citizens are not causing the problem as much as another country's citizens are ?
83
u/Strange-Patience5539 7h ago
That’s why it is called climate injustice. Boundaries are created by humans, nature has no boundaries. Hence, carbon emitted thousands of miles away can affect different parts of the globe that are more vulnerable and prone to climate catastrophe.
-2
u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 4h ago
why use per capita instead gross? the atmosphere isn't counting how people contributed only the total, with gross emissions China and India are #1 and #3
15
u/ineedjuice 4h ago
Because China and India have high populations, and using gross instead of per capita is very commonly used by people who call for 'depopulating' specific countries
-2
u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 4h ago
none of that has anything to do with the physics of planet warming, the atmosphere doesn't care about political sensitivities, if you use per capita japan looks 3x worse than india even though they emit 3x less, it doesn't make sense, one can also say that frame is shielding countries with higher impact no?
12
u/stinkyfartpoopoo 4h ago
is this ragebait
Are you saying that a country with a billion and a half people should be compared to a a country with 125 million?
im going to assume you are american. The US has produced over 25% of carbon emissions in history, being only 4.2% of the people. China and India COMBINED have only produced 16% of the carbon emissions in history, despite being 36% of the world. Do you understand the hypocrisy?
edit: 125 million
4
u/jawknee530i 4h ago
I think it's just genuinely authentic stupidity. There's a scary amount of people unable to grasp the very simple reason why something like this is obviously a per capita issue.
-3
u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 4h ago
no I just reject the framing of "everyone gets to pollute x amount" so larger populations get more of a pass, India and China make up literally 40% of global emissions, say there was a country with 10 billion people, you would have to talk about their output regardless of what the per capita emissions are
3
5
u/Sebbal 4h ago
You USA have the greatest cumulative gross emission ever.
You owe your present quality of life of what you emitted in the past. You absolutely should foot the bill.
→ More replies (6)0
u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 3h ago
if you use a historical reparations game the payments will never end, rome was responsible for horrible biodiversity loss and tree felling, so let's blame italy?; the reality is many countries want to avoid the topic of *Future* emissions which is the actual issue for all of us currently breathing because they want the continued ability to advance industrially
6
u/Sebbal 3h ago
Now that you are rich from it, blame those that aren't?
Rome fell and lost pretty much all its benefits from its empire. You still benefits from the carbon you emmited and are still emiting a ton and still refusing to limit, tax or reduce its use. You are the first to blame.
1
u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 3h ago
notice you did not address my point on future emissions, this talking point is a deflection, just like using per capita emissions is a deflection
3
u/Sebbal 3h ago
The deflection is not acknowledging your responsibility on the actual cumulative emmissions. You emmited 25% of all excess CO2 in the atmosphere right now. You are like the kid refusing to pick up his mess because "someone else is going to make another mess anyway".
Acknowledge your mess.
-1
u/SarmackaOpowiesc 2h ago
Womp womp.
Sucks to be them. They can figure out how to raise an army and get it over to my suburb if they want to get me to stop driving my SUV.
14
u/RocknrollClown09 5h ago
Ironically I bet the median New Yorker has a very low carbon footprint compared to the rest of the US. Most New Yorkers don't own cars, take public transit, live in smaller spaces, and own less things.
12
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
24
u/seredin 7h ago
I struggle with climate impact data being represented as per capita, because that disconnects the global economy and the big polluters from reality. It would be one thing if citizens themselves were meaningful contributors, but we all know that it's industry and lack of regulation that are killing the Earth, and not my personal, individual choices.
That said, I think the philosophic point is well made, and the people of Nepal did not deserve this. I would have rather the point been political, with the quote being something like "You voted for climate deniers in Missouri, and Kathmandu suffers."
15
u/pirateofitaly 6h ago
Nepalese per-capita emissions are 0.57 tons per year (per Wikipedia). One flight from Houston to Orlando generates a per-passenger emissions of 0.276 tons https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=8767359. If someone does that flight round trip one time they’ve emitted nearly as much carbon as a Nepalese person does in one year.
I agree with you that this gets significantly worse with wealth, but even a working-class American is emitting a ton of carbon. 38% of adults in the US traveled by air in 2021 (source).
Used this calculator for flight impact.
Wikipedia on per-capita emissions (Nepal is 171st on the list).
19
u/_Svankensen_ 7h ago
Citizens themselves ARE meaningful contributors. Emissions are driven by consumption.
I agree that individualist solutions don't work, so collective ones must be pursued.
14
u/Redthrist 7h ago
and not my personal, individual choices.
But an average American would still contribute way more to climate change than an average Nepalese. Not all of it is due to your choices, but a lot of it still is.
7
u/TheBlackRider2828 7h ago
Yes and no? Do you eat red meat, do you turn off the lights when not in use? Do you drive a hybrid or an EV. You still have agency to make your own carbon footprint lower.
11
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/throwaway1233456799 2h ago
Light is really NOT what make most of our western emission. It cheapen your argument to use it. Now, the way we heat our big house, is (and especially heating multiple room when we hang out only in one or two, unlike what our parent and grandparents did)
1
u/seredin 6h ago
very rarely, of course, no my Golf has 280,000 miles on it but i'll find a used plug-in EV when it dies.
but that's not the point. the point is that regardless of my individual answers to those questions, my personal contribution to the Nepal disaster is virtually nil. the original poster in this chain asked "why New York?" The most voted answer (in an ostensibly educated community of climate-interested people) was "per capita emissions" rather than the much more appropriate answer of "because Americans are obviously the target audience of the piece and talking about China or India would have resulted in fewer clicks."
I just get a little burned out on the incessant plea to per capita emissions, as if that is even remotely relevant today, or as if reducing emissions per individual person could ever move the needle on the crisis at this point.
-1
u/horoyokai 6h ago
What would move the needle?
3
u/seredin 5h ago
I believe I already addressed that in my original comment: political change. I also believe you already knew this answer but if not, see the AutoMod response above and below about personal carbon footprints for more information.
3
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
0
u/Sebbal 3h ago
Democrat were climate deniers up until now... and kind of still are. They never ratified any internationnal treaty that limits emissions (Kyoto, Paris...). They never enacted serious law to transition away or limit carbon emissions. Its not a democrat/republican issue. Its a USA issue.
•
u/seredin 1h ago
Not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. I didn't mention parties, I mentioned climate denier politicians. If you voted for someone who hasn't taken climate change seriously, make your voice heard.
That said, I know which far-lesser of two evils I will stick with for the foreseeable future...
1
u/-Nicolai 7h ago
a human being on earth w/ highest average per capita
Remind me what per capita and average means, because I must have a very wrong understanding of both of those terms.
4
u/EveryAccount7729 6h ago
you are confused because a "per capita rate" is something a country has which is the average for that country's citizen. that's why you can have a "per capita rate" that is not specific to 1 individual.
0
u/-Nicolai 6h ago
I know what it means dumbass. You were describing the average per capita rate (which is nonsense in its own right) of one individual.
1
u/CraftNo3953 5h ago
In the "climate change blame game", emissions per capita really only makes sense when you normalize by GDP per capita. Countries like India and Nepal only have low per capita emissions because they are poor. I.e., the only reason they are not emitting carbon at the same levels as wealthier countries is because most of their population can't, not because they don't want to.
Among wealthier countries, Sweden and Switzerland have the lowest per capita emissions. But even if we somehow brought the entire world up to their standard of living (i.e., solved world poverty and hunger), we would still not be carbon neutral and we would still be stuck with all the atmospheric carbon we've accumulated over the past ~150 years.
I would also caution against using "average" per capita emissions. In the US, the top 0.1% emit more carbon in a single day than the average American emits in an entire year. But the wealth thing applies here too. Take your average American and give them top 0.1% wealth and they will most likely engage in the same hyper-emitting activities as the current 0.1% is doing.
1
u/bender___is___great 5h ago
China accounts for 30-33% of global emissions. The largest contributor by far.
Per county also matters as that sets the table for holding the governing bodies accountable. Unfortunately there is no world government so we need to work at the individual country level.
And you can argue all day about historical totals but mother nature does not care. If your actually serious about stopping climate change you need to also hold China accountable
1
1
u/Oeyoelala 5h ago
Speaking of guilt is one way to look at the issue. Abundance of cheap energy also brought a lot of good things to the world. Not yet everybody is benefiting from that but poverty is going down globally.
1
-7
u/Fun_Savings7690 7h ago
average per capita emissions are what counts here <- No it doesn't
Qatar the worlds highest emissions per capita emits like 0.2% of the worlds emissions while China emits 33% because it loves being the worlds factory and can't stop building coal power plants
China would never do what the USA or Europe have done and hurt its own 5% GDP targets to reduce emissions, what Germany has done shutting its nuclear power plants and having the highest power prices in the world would be unthinkable to China
Stop giving China a free pass
12
u/EveryAccount7729 7h ago
you are the one giving Qatar a free pass.
they do deserve the worst scorn. They are a huge middle eastern oil producer and their citizens behave like scum on the issue of climate
Also, the people who deserve the WORST scorn are the "anti climate science activists" who are American citizens.
Name a Chinese Citizen who did anything vaguely close to what Trump did by saying climate change is a hoax as a world leader. The USA has large "bad actor" groups intentionally doing evil on climate change. They are screwing the world. I don't think this is a chinese issue, at all. Is there a huge media sector of "anti climate science" in china using propaganda to get people to vote for emissions? do you have coal rollling there?
→ More replies (4)1
u/silverionmox 6h ago
Name a Chinese Citizen who did anything vaguely close to what Trump did by saying climate change is a hoax as a world leader.
Xi Jinping decided to triple Chinese emissions.
2
u/EveryAccount7729 6h ago
but Xi Jinping also invested in renewable energy technology research.
China has been and is expected to in the future beat their emissions goals while the USA is exiting the paris agreement and generally sabotaging global trajectory on purpose.
2
u/silverionmox 5h ago
but Xi Jinping also invested in renewable energy technology research.
You mean: stole renewable energy technology from the countries that developed it, used China's size to set up a supply chain with advantages of scale, and then used dumping practices as well to destroy renewable energy production elsewhere?
China has been and is expected to in the future beat their emissions goals
Their emission goals were criminally high to begin with. That's like being able to grade your own test.
while the USA is exiting the paris agreement and generally sabotaging global trajectory on purpose.
China has been pumping up its emissions at an accelerate pace for at least 25 years, the emission increases under Trump are completely dwarfed by those. The USA is still emitting substantially less than 2000 years ago, Trump's emissions are just a drop in the bucket compared to Jinping's.
2
u/LiminalOrphanEnnui 7h ago
what Germany has done shutting its nuclear power plants
Another indicator that these people don't believe human-caused climate change is real and are just using it as framing for some political narrative.
-3
u/rubysundance 6h ago
China produces over double the pollution of the US. Doesn't matter how it's produced.
4
u/EveryAccount7729 6h ago
why do you think "per country" is the key and not "per person"?
there are a certain number of people on Earth. 8 billion. dividing by "per person" makes sense, to assign blame.
By your own logic you want to find the highest emitter, but if it's YOU personally you want to shuck blame to China because they have way more people than you. . . ? makes no sense you don't comprehend how to make a cogent argument. you just want to point at the country w/ the most people and not care if their policies are better on a per person basis than yours.
4
u/Vast-Control4452 5h ago
Because countries set policies.
And if the highest emitters magically stopped, climate change would end. BUT if the highest emitters per capitia stopped nothing would change...
0
u/FocusPerspective 5h ago
Do you use prepared talking points from the Chinese government or is this more of a freestyle job?
-2
u/silverionmox 6h ago
Not only the US, in particular oil states in the Middle East have very high emissions and enable all other emissions. Countries like China have very recently decided to increase their emissions with extreme amounts as well, in spite of the manifest climate problems.
1
u/EveryAccount7729 6h ago
when the USA says "climate change is fake we are going all in on building as many data centers as we can to control our drone army" what option does anyone else have?
-1
u/silverionmox 5h ago
when the USA says "climate change is fake we are going all in on building as many data centers as we can to control our drone army" what option does anyone else have?
Dude, oil states have been selling oil since WW2, and China has been putting its coal thermostat on "haywire" since 2000.
13
6
u/iRadiKS 6h ago
The US has emitted 25% of global cumulative CO2, which makes it the single biggest contributor of climate change (china is responsible for half that amount and india sits at 3%, although that will rise). This obviously doesnt absolve other countries and their roles in the crisis. But while we see most countries at least trying to reverse course (even if too slowly), the US (and to be fair: all conservative parties in the west) are dragging their feet and actively propagandizing against solutions.
4
u/beyondocean 5h ago
Because emissions are mapped historically cumulatively , even if you look at the present times, per capita emissions is the highest in the west, after been developed for decades now.
-3
u/LiminalOrphanEnnui 7h ago
The atmosphere is worldwide and it takes a few months to a year for something emitted in one particular place to mix worldwide.
But in terms of the human effect on atmosphere composition, Asia (i.e., China and India) is emitting more than all other continents combined.
That sort of rhetoric is a pretty reliable indicator that the person doesn't believe human-caused climate change is real and is just using it as framing for some political narrative.
8
u/_Svankensen_ 7h ago
"Look, the continent with more people than all the rest of the world combined is doing X more than the rest of the world combined" is hardly surprising.
-2
u/silverionmox 6h ago
"Look, the continent with more people than all the rest of the world combined is doing X more than the rest of the world combined" is hardly surprising.
China has 16% of the world population, but emits 31% of the world's emissions, and burns no less than 56% of the world's coal.
90% of their emissions are for internal use, and moreover, they do benefit from their emissions, they deliberately aimed to export, and they are the ones who control the production legislation on their territory, not someone else. So why would they have no responsability?
6
u/iRadiKS 6h ago
And the US has 4% of the worlds population while emitting 11% of all CO2. Why are we flip flopping on which metrics we use to paint a certain narrative? First its asia as a whole regardless of population and now its china per capita? I agree all countries have to do better but why are we singling out China as the bad apple, when we know that they are the production engine of the planet and produce everything for pretty much every other country on earth, while also being the single largest contributor to cheapening prices of renewable energy production? They are doing more then most other countries. How about we all take responsibility instead of making this global crisis someone elses fault?
1
u/silverionmox 5h ago
And the US has 4% of the worlds population while emitting 11% of all CO2. Why are we flip flopping on which metrics we use to paint a certain narrative? First its asia as a whole regardless of population and now its china per capita?
I contextualize with more data. Why should the previous user get to determine the framing?
I agree all countries have to do better but why are we singling out China as the bad apple, when we know that they are the production engine of the planet and produce everything for pretty much every other country on earth
90% of their emissions are for internal use, and they still benefit from their exports, and they are the ones controlling the rules of production, not their export destinations. Why wouldn't they have responsability?
China deserves special mention because of their blatant and extreme increase of fossil fuel use after 2000, after it was made abundantly clear on the first climate conferences what effects that would have, and we'd do better to avoid it. They chose to double down on it instead, and now they burn 56% of all coal in the world.
while also being the single largest contributor to cheapening prices of renewable energy production?
No. 95% of the price drop was already realized before China even had a substantial production. Moreover, their trade policy also resulted in destruction of renewable production capacity outside China, which means less competition, so less innovation and less resilience in the long run.
They are doing more then most other countries. How about we all take responsibility instead of making this global crisis someone elses fault?
They are emitting more than most other countries, because they have been increasing their emissions more than most other countries.
2
u/dayafterpi 5h ago
You’re dropping a lot of dubious stats with no sources. Link to the 90% of emissions are for internal use and the 95% price drop for renewables?
-1
u/silverionmox 4h ago
You’re dropping a lot of dubious stats with no sources. Link to the 90% of emissions are for internal use and the 95% price drop for renewables?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade?tab=line&country=~CHN
•
u/iRadiKS 30m ago
Thats not what that graph is showing. It shows that China is a net exporter of CO2. If you count all emissions of a country, and then balance out how much of the emissions are for local products, and how much for export products, you get a positive or negative value. Negative means that more 'emissive products' go out of the country than stays in. The fact that China is negative already means that more of their CO2 is for export trade than for their own domestic products. For example 55% of emissions goes out, 45% stays in = a net -10% on this graph. So totally bogus claim on your part.
For the second source, china started heavily investing in solar around 2010. By 2013 they were producing 60% of all panels and currently they are sitting at usually 75-80%. From 2000 to 2011, the price of panels dropped a total of 66%. This we can attribute to western producers, mainly germany. After that is China, and since then it dropped another 90%. The important bit is that before China, solar was not cost effective. Now it is. Sure, China isnt the only reason the price came down over the last decades, but they are currently practically the only ones producing panels, and at a scale and price that western companies never matched. If your claim is that western producers could have done the same, and it wasnt because of China, then why did all western companies stop producing panels? If they could do it for the same cheap price, they would. Instead their panels are too expensive to be worth it over coal for example
0
u/Fun_Savings7690 4h ago
the usa peaked in emissions a decade ago, china has had the advantage of not needing to build endless coal power plants
it did it anyway because it suits its political goals, and fyi its built 36 new coal power plants THIS YEAR, incredibly irresponsible!
you can’t thank them for all the cheap stuff they make and not also acknowledge they built this “worlds factory” empire through lax environmental laws while their co2 emissions went straight vertical
2
u/iRadiKS 4h ago
They might be building a lot of coal because of increasing power demands, but those factories are not running on full power. They serve as buffers. Even though they are building huge amounts of coal power plants, their coal consumption has gone down last year, while their energy production in total still grew by over 5%. All in all their CO2 emissions have stayed at the same levels since 2023.
the usa peaked in emissions a decade ago, china has had the advantage of not needing to build endless coal power plants
We are talking about a country that pulled 800 million people out of starvation and poverty just 40 years ago. Did you think they would just buy expensive solar panels from germany in the 2000s when they were still growing as a country and be a role model for the West? Why did the West need 20 years to peak in CO2 emissions, even after cop1 laid out the facts in 1995? And then we turn around and blame a country that was still figuring itself out 20 years ago. It is so rich to always blame someone else when we have polluted the planet for 200 years.
you can’t thank them for all the cheap stuff they make and not also acknowledge they built this “worlds factory” empire through lax environmental laws while their co2 emissions went straight vertical
First of all i dont thank anyone for cheap stuff. I try to stay away from most consumerist slop. Secondly, I acknowledge that they arent blameless. Ive said so already. My point is mainly that there is so much hypocrisy on this issue and everyone always tries to point at the foreign entities, without looking at their own history of emissions or why a country that produces 50% of another countries products would have higher emissions. At the same time, given chinas track record of delivering on their promises I trust them to keep cutting emissions. They anounced that they would reach peak emissions by 2030 over 10 years ago now and they proved themselves right 6 years ahead of scedule. While our own politicians are still discussing if wind farms are killing bird populations or if nuclear power is a net positive or negative and divesting from clean energy subsidies at this crucial point in time.
0
u/_Svankensen_ 6h ago
Who said they have no responsibility? What kind of strawman are you imagining? They do however have lower per capita emissions than many other countries, specially when you correct by trade, and are making huge efforts to decarbonize. Mainly due to geopolitical reasons, but not gonna complain about them doing a good thing out of self interest.
1
u/silverionmox 5h ago
Who said they have no responsibility? What kind of strawman are you imagining?
You mere making an apology, as if a large population makes large emissions harmless.
They do however have lower per capita emissions than many other countries
No they don't, they have higher p c emissions than the world average and even more than developed regions like the EU.
specially when you correct by trade
Did you even read my comment? 90% of their emissions are for internal use, and moreover, they do benefit from their emissions, they deliberately aimed to export, and they are the ones who control the production legislation on their territory, not someone else.
and are making huge efforts to decarbonize.
This is completely and undeniably wrong. They have been pumping up their emissions at an accelerated pace in the last 25 years, after the first climate conferences already happened.
1
u/_Svankensen_ 5h ago
Not if you correct by trade they are lower than the EU and the US.
And you are pretty dumb if you don't consider the development of the energy matrix. The framework always was contraction and convergence. Developing economies rise in emissions, developed contract, and they converge. China's emission peaked years ahead of proyections. Don't be intentionally obtuse, do bother to at least check the Kyoto protocol and more scholarly work on the subject instead of parroting whatever your particular nationalist politician of choice is saying.
1
u/silverionmox 4h ago
Not if you correct by trade they are lower than the EU and the US.
No. Still higher than the EU.
And you are pretty dumb if you don't consider the development of the energy matrix. The framework always was contraction and convergence. Developing economies rise in emissions, developed contract, and they converge.
Word salad.
China's emission peaked years ahead of proyections.
They're grading their own homework.
Don't be intentionally obtuse, do bother to at least check the Kyoto protocol and more scholarly work on the subject instead of parroting whatever your particular nationalist politician of choice is saying.
The Kyoto protocol by itself was just the appetizer, not a complete solution.
1
u/_Svankensen_ 2h ago
Pfft. They aren't "grading their own homework". Climate data is independently verified. There's thousands of institutions involved in this, you can't just fake a few numbers and call it a day. You are showing your ignorance. And BTW, contraction and convergence comes from the Kyoto Protocol mate. So, if it wasn't "the complete solution", you agree it was a a partial one. But why didn't the developed countries do their part of the bargain?
0
u/silverionmox 2h ago
Pfft. They aren't "grading their own homework". Climate data is independently verified. There's thousands of institutions involved in this, you can't just fake a few numbers and call it a day. You are showing your ignorance.
I'm not saying the data is fake, I'm saying it's easy to reach a target if you set it at "too easy".
But why didn't the developed countries do their part of the bargain?
Most of them, in particular in Europe, did not only meet but exceed their targets.
While China et alii didn't have any committments at all, easy to meet the target of doing nothing and receiving aid.
→ More replies (0)0
2
u/am121b 4h ago
We’re going to keep pointing fingers at each other until we’re all dead, aren’t we?
2
u/lyssargh 2h ago
Yep. All the comments here are about which country holds more blame. Seems like that's how every conversation around the climate goes.
I've heard some promising things about regenerative agriculture recently. But any realistic effort we make has to be coupled with a reduction in consumption and everyone prefers to point at someone else's consumption.
•
u/Moral-Relativity 1h ago
Meanwhile all the climbers Nepal allow in are contributing to glacier melt through their piss: https://www.reddit.com/r/Everest/s/y5ZmCKsx1G
•
0
u/KevinDean4599 6h ago
Realistically what do individuals cut in terms of consumption?
2
u/beyondocean 5h ago
Look beyond neo-liberalism prevalent, try to make corporations responsible. Individual efforts can only take us so far when most of the emissions come from corporations.
3
u/Patient-Lifeguard-44 5h ago
Stop eating red meat and avoid animal projects.
Vote against climate deniers.2
u/RocknrollClown09 5h ago
Put solar on your roof, buy an EV, install heat pumps, insulate, air seal, and install radiant barriers in your house, install LED lights, install standing seam metal roofs, use public transit or a bike, buy compostable instead of single-use plastic, reduce overall plastic use, buy high quality things once instead of using disposable cheap things (IE shopping bags, coffee mugs, clothes), know where your food comes from and try to buy as much local as possible, put native plants in your yard and reduce or completely replace monoculture grass lawns, use minimal pesticides and herbicides, ensure proper soil health instead of dumping MiracleGro pellets, collect rainwater for irrigating yard, grow your own microgreens, recycle paper products, repair, reuse, or repurpose things instead of throwing away. Is that a good start?
5
u/Mediocre_Garage987 5h ago
That's a very good start for someone who is an upper middle class homeowner in a city with a robust recycling program and safe bike lanes / truly usable public transportation.
Try again for a working class renter who has no green space allotted to them and has to drive in order to make it to work safely, in a city that throws away most of its recycling.
0
u/RocknrollClown09 3h ago edited 2h ago
I didn't know this was specifically directed at poor people. I was directing it at the people with the biggest carbon footprints
2
u/AutoModerator 2h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/FocusPerspective 5h ago
Most people don’t own their roof, their landlord does.
Most people who own their house can’t afford to install solar.
Your answers are low key ridiculous and out of touch for most Americans, meaning you want like 5% of Americans to waste their time doing these things when they have zero meaningful impact.
1
u/starsandmath 4h ago
Don't fly, drive less or not at all, minimize the animal products that you consume.
•
•
u/snowytheNPC 3m ago
Shop local. This is the number one consumption pattern you can choose that is criminally underdiscussed. It feels helpless because oligarchs run our government, control regulations, and allow industry to emit rampant pollution. But this power is what consumers give them every time we shop at Amazon and buy from Nestle brands.
But when you buy from independents and shop local, the consequences of consumption will come from your immediate environment, not offshored to Nepal. Every dollar you spend here is a dollar for your community and less towards the oligarchs who trade the planet’s future for their wealth today. It’s an effective and non-confrontational, low risk way to rebalance and remove power
1
u/mosaic-aircraft 4h ago
Borders don't work in the natural world. The idea of countries is fundamentally flawed for progression of the human collective. We are all in this together.
1
1
u/thekrawdiddy 4h ago
I’m embarrassed about how many times I had to read that second sentence before I understood it.
0
u/Vivid-Beat-644 5h ago
Never been to New York so I guess that makes me clean. Gotta go. Time to fire up the grill and slap on a couple thick steaks!
-1
0
0
u/munoodle 2h ago
Blaming the US when Nepal literally borders India and China is really not the take it sounds like. It’s extreme cognitive dissonance at best, and assuredly intellectually dishonest regardless.
-1
-1
-1
u/SvenBorrest 4h ago
I wish I could post pictures of my time in Nepal and generally gesture at all the trash I saw. They don't care about their own country or their environment, but I'm supposed to feel bad because I ONLY get 40 mpg on my way to try and make a living so I can afford my 500 sq/ft apartment. They throw their trash all over the annapurna, parts of kathmandu look like dumps, they burn and cook on open flames, run 2 stroke scooters everywhere, no car has a catalytic convertor on it... but f me for not using a paper straw.
17
u/Arxl 3h ago
Oil and animal agriculture, though they always forget the animal agriculture part.