The planet can sustain 10x more people if they live like people in India vs Saudi Arabia or UAE…
It’s funny you want to focus on a factor of 5, though. Especially when they still come in dead last after a 5x increase. The average person on earth contributes about 4 tons of GHGs. First world nations are 4x-5x that.
Tough argument to make. Nation states are a somewhat arbitrary construct. What if China or India were each four countries instead of one? Should we take geographical area into account? This is why the per capita measure is important.
The UAE is land mass less than 2% the size of India and China and relies on desalination plants for habitibillity. Why would either India or China have populations that small, while not having such limitations?
It’s easy to say less humans is the solution (and don’t worry, the world is clearly headed that direction looking at global fertility rates) but saying a specific country having less people is part of the solution, especially when it’s a country with lower per capita emissions, seems difficult to justify.
because a country is made up of people and governments, who have different priorities and determine how best to respond to the climate change threat
it’s not really arbitrary, there is a very clear difference between the goals of the uk who shut all their coal power plants, germany who shut all their nuclear power plants and china who are meth head addicted to building as many coal power plants as they can despite being already no.1 in co2 emissions by a long shot
China is at least progressing nicely. While America regresses.
China is doing an amazing job on the renewables front no doubt
But they are also doing a fantastic job installing new coal power plants
A “resurgence” in construction of new coal-fired power plants in China is “undermining the country’s clean-energy progress”, says a new joint report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
A big part of this is because right wing people think renewables are economically bad and ideologically motivated, whereas in reality they are economically sound and the right wingers are the ones who are driven by ideology
You one of those what if’ers, eh?
The opposite, I live in reality, remember the planet doesn’t care about per capita, only actual output ;)
I wouldn’t call it undermining. China adding coal capacity while scaling renewables is not evidence of hypocrisy. It’s evidence of a system trying to meet rising demand and stabilize a grid during rapid buildout. Both things can be true at once without one cancelling the other.
Really? You don’t think building 500 coal power plants is undermining their clean energy goals? What would it take? 1000 coal power plants?
China adding coal capacity while scaling renewables is not evidence of hypocrisy. It’s evidence of a system trying to meet rising demand and stabilize a grid during rapid buildout. Both things can be true at once without one cancelling the other.
You don’t think other countries are also trying to meet rising demand and stabilise their grids? I think Germany might like a word and last I saw they weren’t building 500 new coal power plants
You think right wing people think? Brrruhhhhh…
I wouldn’t be talking shit about anyone, you just gave China (the current number 1 highest co2 emitter in the world by far) a free ride to pollute as much as possible while giving the USA shit for ‘regressing’ despite the fact the USA isn’t even doing half the co2 output China is
I guess the USA can regress another few million tons of co2 a day since it’s trying to meet rising demand and stabilise its grid
I could Google this. But I’m just curious what ya think…
What do you think the population of China is?
What do you think the population of Germany is?
Are those numbers not many orders of magnitude different?
Talking shit? Free rides?
What’s the population of America?
And the funny thing about America - if you consider just them and ignore everybody else on the planet - just America’s emissions are not sustainable. And that’s only a few hundred million people. Not billions.
The thing about China, though. They’re leading the world in renewables. And if you had any sense then you’d realize renewables typically only work optimally occasionally. Things like wind power only work when there’s wind. Solar when there’s sun. Whereas coal/oil/gas you can burn 24/7/365 until there’s no more dinosaur corpses or ancient forests left to burn.
Sure, China is currently the largest annual emitter of CO₂. That’s mainly because it’s the world’s manufacturing base plus a massive ongoing infrastructure and energy expansion. But per person, the U.S. is still higher! Americans emit significantly more CO₂ per capita than Chinese citizens.
Fossil fuels are still used for dispatchability in many places(China), but batteries, grid interconnects, and demand-shifting are changing that equation fast.
You ignore history. The USA - cumulatively - has produced a lot more pollution than China - cumulatively.
It matters.
The planet can sustain 10x more people if they live like people in India vs Saudi Arabia or UAE…
It’s funny you want to focus on a factor of 5, though. Especially when they still come in dead last after a 5x increase. The average person on earth contributes about 4 tons of GHGs. First world nations are 4x-5x that.
According to this: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/
The current Indian population is: 1,473,793,835
If India had the population of Saudi Arabia or the UAE we could all live like Saudi Arabia or the UAE
If China had the population of Saudi Arabia or the UAE we wouldn’t even be discussing climate change right now
Tough argument to make. Nation states are a somewhat arbitrary construct. What if China or India were each four countries instead of one? Should we take geographical area into account? This is why the per capita measure is important.
The UAE is land mass less than 2% the size of India and China and relies on desalination plants for habitibillity. Why would either India or China have populations that small, while not having such limitations?
It’s easy to say less humans is the solution (and don’t worry, the world is clearly headed that direction looking at global fertility rates) but saying a specific country having less people is part of the solution, especially when it’s a country with lower per capita emissions, seems difficult to justify.
because a country is made up of people and governments, who have different priorities and determine how best to respond to the climate change threat
it’s not really arbitrary, there is a very clear difference between the goals of the uk who shut all their coal power plants, germany who shut all their nuclear power plants and china who are meth head addicted to building as many coal power plants as they can despite being already no.1 in co2 emissions by a long shot
Historically, USA is still the leading source of total pollution since the industrial revolution.
China is at least progressing nicely. While America regresses.
You one of those what if’ers, eh?
China is doing an amazing job on the renewables front no doubt
But they are also doing a fantastic job installing new coal power plants
https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-just-15-countries-account-for-98-of-new-coal-power-development/
This is something they are choosing to do willingly, knowing they are the highest polluting country in the world by far
I also think the American regress is overstated
We are still seeing records broken on the regular: https://reneweconomy.com.au/grid-batteries-reach-stunning-new-peak-of-44-pct-of-evening-demand-in-worlds-fourth-biggest-economy/
A big part of this is because right wing people think renewables are economically bad and ideologically motivated, whereas in reality they are economically sound and the right wingers are the ones who are driven by ideology
The opposite, I live in reality, remember the planet doesn’t care about per capita, only actual output ;)
I wouldn’t call it undermining. China adding coal capacity while scaling renewables is not evidence of hypocrisy. It’s evidence of a system trying to meet rising demand and stabilize a grid during rapid buildout. Both things can be true at once without one cancelling the other.
You think right wing people think? Brrruhhhhh…
Really? You don’t think building 500 coal power plants is undermining their clean energy goals? What would it take? 1000 coal power plants?
You don’t think other countries are also trying to meet rising demand and stabilise their grids? I think Germany might like a word and last I saw they weren’t building 500 new coal power plants
I wouldn’t be talking shit about anyone, you just gave China (the current number 1 highest co2 emitter in the world by far) a free ride to pollute as much as possible while giving the USA shit for ‘regressing’ despite the fact the USA isn’t even doing half the co2 output China is
I guess the USA can regress another few million tons of co2 a day since it’s trying to meet rising demand and stabilise its grid
I could Google this. But I’m just curious what ya think…
What do you think the population of China is?
What do you think the population of Germany is?
Are those numbers not many orders of magnitude different?
Talking shit? Free rides?
What’s the population of America?
And the funny thing about America - if you consider just them and ignore everybody else on the planet - just America’s emissions are not sustainable. And that’s only a few hundred million people. Not billions.
The thing about China, though. They’re leading the world in renewables. And if you had any sense then you’d realize renewables typically only work optimally occasionally. Things like wind power only work when there’s wind. Solar when there’s sun. Whereas coal/oil/gas you can burn 24/7/365 until there’s no more dinosaur corpses or ancient forests left to burn.
Sure, China is currently the largest annual emitter of CO₂. That’s mainly because it’s the world’s manufacturing base plus a massive ongoing infrastructure and energy expansion. But per person, the U.S. is still higher! Americans emit significantly more CO₂ per capita than Chinese citizens.
Fossil fuels are still used for dispatchability in many places(China), but batteries, grid interconnects, and demand-shifting are changing that equation fast.
You ignore history. The USA - cumulatively - has produced a lot more pollution than China - cumulatively.
hey already responded about population here
https://aussie.zone/post/31299070/22304750
also india has a bigger population than china, you can compare co2 emissions