421
submitted 1 year ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

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

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with the idea, but there's no getting out of needing heat in Canada.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] MadCybertist@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I mean….. does Mother Earth give a shit if you’re a 1%-er?

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Per capita" means per person, it has nothing to do with being mostly unpopulated. And it sure is that bad.
The exact figures differ slightly depending on who you ask, my source was Worldometer.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

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

Ngl im not too great at expressing my whole thought processmao

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
421 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38968 readers
2146 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS