425
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
[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Incidentally, China is the single largest contributor of GHGs in the world. Their coal fired power generation is immense and incredibly damaging.

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago

Because China is a country with the third largest land mass with the second largest population in the world. But per capita, they produce half of what an American does.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Both need to significantly reduce their emissions. We do not need deflection for either.

[-] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Thank you, I'm so sick of hearing it. It's just another cop out from climate change deniers.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 14 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

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 4 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 4 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.

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

Ok? Thats a great way to ignore the problem. How does it reduce emissions?

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not ignoring the problem, you are complaining that we are running out of food because that group of a billion people are eating too much when you have over twice as much food on your own plates, and saying the solution is that they should be forced to eat even less.

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

It is ignoring the problem. I'm complaining about the massive amounts of carbon China is pumping out and getting worse every year and you're making excuses.

Classic tragedy of the commons. It's no one fault. Everyone is doing it. Blah blah blah. None of this is lowering GHGs.

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

And if we split China into three smaller countries with a population of 450 million each, then those would only produce 3/4th the Co2 of USA each putting USA in the number one spot and solve climate change? China currently pollutes the most overall simply because it has the (second) biggest population, and that makes it look bad in the "per country" statistic. But per person they pollute less than half of what someone from the US, Australia or Canada do.

Another extreme example is India, it is on spot 3 on overall emissions, which means it produces a fuckton of CO2, even though per capita the figure is 1.89 - one person from the US produces as much CO2 emissions than 8 people from India. They are already well below the global average (~5 tons per person) and even below the suggested target to counter climate change - 2.5 per person.

load more comments (19 replies)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
425 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38167 readers
2282 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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