Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China

by KyleOS • 7 years ago

42 64 7 years ago

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Taking into account the nation's population size gives us a more accurate measure of countries' relative contributions to CO2 emissions. The flip between countries like Ireland and China when we go from total to per capita is really interesting.

Not_anchovie2• 7 years ago

I doubt the population matters relative to the industries themselves that pollute.

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Well, it's important when measuring which nations are most responsible for climate change. So we'll see the list topped by smaller countries with energy-intensive industries such as Qatar, as well as some small Western developed countries like Ireland also performing poorly. It helps provide a clearer picture of the climate change initiatives these governments should be pursuing, which I promise you matters to the industries themselves.

yrro• 7 years ago

I'm happy to criticise both. The "developed" world shouldn't be buying goods with >neutral carbon footprint, and China shouldn't be selling them.

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Well, it's quite hypocritical for us to dictate to China that they shouldn't be selling goods with a >neutral carbon footprint no? A discussion on historical responsibility matters, with rich nations having emitted about 80% of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, which means roughly 80% of the gas heating the atmosphere today came from the developed northern countries. Rich nations are developed enough to reduce our reliance at a faster and more efficient rate.

nothrabannosir• 7 years ago

Sure, it’s incredibly hypocrite. We are hyperhypocrites. The biggest of all.

Can we now move on and do something about climate change? Or are we so gung ho on blameculture that we would rather respectfully stay silent while the newcomers take their sweet time repeating our mistakes, destroying the earth in the process? It would be unfair if they didn’t get their turn at destroying our planet from within, after all.

We are far too slowly realising the magnitude of the issue. There is no time to awkwardly “you first no you first” at the door while the damage is compounding.

We made a mistake. Yes. Let’s not stick our head in the sand just because that’s the polite thing to do, now, please.

(edit: I should have counted to 10 before posting that :) sorry. to clarify: my issue is purely with the focus on hypocrisy. I find it often drives us from a solution rather than towards one. the less we focus on whose goat was originally insulted by whose grandpa, the more readily the village can put aside its strife and work together to stem the rising tide.)

justaguyhere• 7 years ago

We are all to blame. But what good blaming each other is going to do now?

We are at a critical situation now. We should move past blaming the west, the east, the baby boomers ... whatever. And spend our collective brain power in fixing the problem instead. Or, as George Carlin joked, the earth will still be here, it is just us that would be gone

helenakyso• 7 years ago

It would be nice if you could add the carbon credit of each country vs carbon emissions

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Good suggestion! Any suggestions for where I can find easily accessible data?

marak830• 7 years ago

How about we blame each, and every other country, based upon all factors, up to and including the end result.

There is no country (as far as I know) in a carbon neutral or negative state.

Degrees of shit doesn't really help anyone, just gives more reason for finger pointing.

ratboy6662• 7 years ago

First, how many trees per capita are there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree-density/?...

From this, we determine that Canada has 8953 trees per person.

Next, how much carbon does each tree sink:

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h...

48 pounds of carbon per tree, per year.

Which means that, in Canada, 214.8 tons of carbon are sequestered annually per person.

Canada's people generate 15.7 tons of carbon per person (or, as the linked article puts it, about 4 times the global average).

http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php

So, Canada is STILL "carbon negative" -- in a major way.

So, there is one example. In North America, even.

FredW

edit: added "per person" to usage, change But to So in conclusion.

cowwithbeef• 7 years ago

To reduce per capita CO2 emissions, breed like rabbits and ignore CO2 emissions.

polskibus• 7 years ago

Wasn't there a time of massive growth in USA too? Surely USA wouldn't be able to achieve supremacy without relying at some point on tech that emits huge amount of CO2?

jacknews2• 7 years ago

The per-capita figure indicates the level of industrialization, and the curve shows whether and how much consideration is being given to curbing carbon emissions.

No-one is doing enough, but at least the developed-nation figures are going down, whereas China is going through the roof.

You can't argue with the impact of 1.3B people, the overall emissions figure really is what actually counts.

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

down vs down enough. Do we credit the strongest economic nation in the world for improving slightly on emissions or do we strive for it to do even better? That's the point of these visuals.

ummonk2• 7 years ago

The US and Canada are reducing their emissions from a much higher per-capita level than China's emissions. You want a participation trophy for that "progress"?

jacknews2• 7 years ago

US/Canada is going DOWN, China is going UP.

As I said, "no-one is doing enough"

But at least the developed nations appear to be trying, mildly, so if we absolutely had to give out awards, that would be the criteria. And let's not forget the overall figures are what actually count.

IMHO having a population of 1.3B behooves you to make an extra effort to keep that per-capita figure from sky-rocketing. And maybe also to use your low per-capita figures to berate the still-excessive (per-capita) developed nations to do better - rather than using that difference as an excuse to go full-throttle yourself.

deogeo3• 7 years ago

I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last ~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead statistics are used that completely disregard population size, especially since it's so heavily advocated:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we...

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-ch...

https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-f...

kbutler4• 7 years ago

1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects

2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.

deogeo3• 7 years ago

#1 is my point, and as for #2, there aren't many newspapers calling for reduced immigration to reduce CO2 emissions, are there? Have fewer children, but don't dare consider reducing immigration.

duality• 7 years ago

I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?

3zra• 7 years ago

What I don't fully understand about calculating carbon footprints is if I buy an iPhone made in China, does that add to the carbon footprint per capita of my country or to China's carbon footprint per capita? If the second were to be true, we would be shaming 'developing' countries for fuelling our own consumption levels.

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

I believe it is indeed the second - it would add to China's carbon footprint - & I completely agree with you. This article addresses the issue nicely: https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-of-chinas-carbon-dioxid... countries that import more and manufacture less (the West) experience falling emissions, while that of the developing, manufacturing economies increases

rad_gruchalski• 7 years ago

Very interesting post but it is unreadable on mobile. Text jumps around (no dimensions for images?) and something weird happens with the scroll. Shame.

ChrisGranger4• 7 years ago

Calling countries' total emissions "meaningless" because they're not measured per capita is ignoring the reality of the problem. Qatar—the worst per-capita offender—could go carbon-neutral tomorrow and climate change would march on unaffected, because China is still responsible for the lion's share of the CO₂ emissions.

China's emissions (and India's, for that matter) are only low per capita because of how many people they have living in relative poverty. I wouldn't say this is a statistic to be proud of.

village-idiot• 7 years ago

Also, a large amount of china’s emissions are caused by the manufacture of goods for western countries.

ChrisGranger4• 7 years ago

True. This is a problem that needs to be looked at globally. We all live or die together, if we can't solve it. Nature doesn't care about the borders of nation states.

mikeash2• 7 years ago

China and India could go carbon-neutral tomorrow and climate change would still march on, albeit a bit more slowly. Focusing on any individual country is foolishness.

mempko3• 7 years ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is simply true. To solve this problem will require a GLOBAL effort. Notice China didn't pull out of the Paris agreement. The sad truth is every country has been failing to meet its agreements so far and some are hostile to the problem like the USA (who has a major political party denying the problem exists).

ChrisGranger4• 7 years ago

If China and India went carbon-neutral tomorrow, we wouldn't be racing against the clock to solve the problem. A gradual and organic move to green energy would be enough to avert climate change.

reitzensteinm• 7 years ago

The reality of the problem is that Western consumption is off the charts, and if the entire world rises to our level we're screwed. The answer for that is not to condemn China and India to remain in poverty; it's to drastically reduce our own consumption to set the standard, and only then put pressure on others to reduce.

While we are emitting more per capita than China, if we tell them to cut their emissions they will - and should - tell us to piss off.

username223• 7 years ago

A better measure would be carbon per dollar of GDP, since what we really need to do is create more wealth with less carbon. China fares poorly, and the US is in the middle of the pack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

bkohlmann• 7 years ago

Per capital emissions is valuable - and don’t we also need to look at emissions per unit of economic output? (Ie carbon per dollar of GDP?)

Emissions means something is being produced, which is why we find them useful despite externalities. There is a balance between human quality of life and preventing climate change.

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Great suggestion - I just forked the original post and created a new map based on emissions per unit of economic output: https://kyso.io/KyleOS/co2-per-unit-output it flips the map for North America and a lot of SE Asian countries

RenRav• 7 years ago

CO2 isn't the only problem! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...

KyleOS11• 7 years ago

Very good point - I actually only posted on this topic the other day: https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-meat-consumption

I'm wondering if there is a way to plot the impact this consumption has on the environment - maybe I can apply some form of multiplier to each country's meat consumption. Any suggestions? Would love to update that post with an environmental twist.

rayiner2• 7 years ago

Criticize none. Per capita CO2 emissions are low in countries where most people are peasant farmers. The average Bangladeshi has a CO2 footprint of 0.5 tons per year. A homeless person in the US has a footprint of 8 tons per year when you account for her share of public infrastructure: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h.... Likewise, countries with fertility rates so low they will cease to exist in relatively short order is good for CO2 emissions. But neither state of affairs is a good outcome.

Carbon reduction is not a solution to climate change. (And we will never achieve meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions precisely for that reason.) The only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture. We’ll either discover that technology before whatever the tipping point is, or we’ll cease to exist as a civilization before we discover the technology.

mrpopo• 7 years ago

Of course, we should criticize both. And most importantly ourselves.

You say the only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture, but that goes absolutely contrary to the meaning of the word... The American way of life, and the recent Chinese way of life are unsustainable and should, and will stop. Either by choice or by force.

rayiner2• 7 years ago

Would you rather have us live like farmers in Bangladesh?

pcwalton• 7 years ago

"Sucking carbon out of the air won’t solve climate change": https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/1744562...

decasteve• 7 years ago

Looking at the 10 worst emitters and seeing Curaçao as number 2 highlights some of the difficulty of finger-pointing this way. There's an oil refinery on this tiny island. The oil is not only consumed there but it's shipped elsewhere. So the people who benefit are not the ones that create the emissions.

The world collectively has the materials and technologies and labour potential to get 100% of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. The barriers to do so are artificial. We are limited by the systemic, not the physical. So what can be done systemically to push us in that direction more quickly?

gedy2• 7 years ago

It feels like some tout the "per capita" emissions to encourage their political agenda instead dealing with climate change. Maybe same reason why some dismiss geoengineering outright with no consideration or discussion.

Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China

Related Stories