Damn, can’t remember the last time I was proud of the UK for something lol
This shows that data can be very misleading. Both India and China have huge rural subsistence farming populations that produce virtually no emissions
Yes, and yet the difference between them is a factor of 4.
Now, I don’t know this source. And I’m always sceptical of infographics. Does this include the fact that many other countries have their manufacturing in China?
I think this is probably a case where the median gives a far more complete picture than the average.
Very topsy-turvy world where European countries can be “coffee exporters” and claim better environmental practices than the countries they exploit
What coffee-producing country is higher than the European countries on that chart?
Well this is more about the land use policies that the Europeans push on them, but you can easily find workshops of them “instructed African farmers on better ecological practices” and shit like that. They write articles about the dangers of monocropping, pesticide use, etc, all practices their debt system demands to keep up. They insist these countries do not develop higher industry even car factories as it would be a carbon explosion, that’s been fixed with electric veh— But that would require background information, why not just attempt to gotcha me to misrepresent what I’m saying (the only thing anyone on here knows how to do)
But that would require background information, why not just attempt to gotcha me to misrepresent what I’m saying
I asked a simple question for clarification, that’s not a gotcha attempt. If you can’t answer it straightforwardly then maybe you gotcha-ed yourself.
I didn’t misrepresent what you were saying. You claimed this graphic says Europeans have better climate stats than exploited coffee-producing regions. It appears to show most European countries as having higher carbon emissions per capita than any coffee-producing country.
Did you misrepresent yourself in what you were trying to say, or are you misrepresenting the graphic? Because you still haven’t explained what you meant if it was something else, you just got defensive and complained about me asking you to clarify.
“It’s not a gotcha”—proceeds to interrogate the point that was already clarified. Eat my entire ass snookums
Not my fault if you never read a Guardian article about the chilling prospect of Africa industrializing in the past fifteen years. You had time
Ah, time for my daily “chart that would be better as a table”.
At least this time the visuals make sense
NGL. One of the few times I’m proud to be British. Plenty more work to go though.
Ayyyy, just said the same thing lol
I’m sorry, I’m sorry, but I can’t cope with Turkey being the only country not written in English in this.
Their English name is officially Republic of Türkiye
What number is the letter ‘ü’ in the English alphabet?
21.5
It’s a letter U with an umlaut
Ok, at what position is the ‘u with an umlaut’ located in the English alphabet?
I mean, Motörhead was about as English as it gets. Do you have beef with them too?
Their ‘ö’ makes no sense whatsoever and is there for shits and giggles. Nothing about it is English. And I would hope that naming of countries has better reasoning.
What a naïve thing to say, clearly your resumé doesn’t include much on languages, letters, and loan words…
Before you talk to me about loanwords, you’ll have to tell me how the name of Czech writer, author of ‘Rossum’s Universal Robots’ is pronounced; and how the name of Slovenian neo-Marxist philosopher, author of ‘The Sublime Object of Ideology’ is pronounced.
Do I need to be proficient in Czech and Slovenian to point out that loanwords exist in the English language with letters and diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet? My point stands either way, and your response does nothing to address that. In fact, you’re kind of proving yourself wrong about Türkiye.
If I’m remembering correctly from my time in Czechia, Čapek would be pronounced “Chapek,” but I could be wrong and that still wouldn’t change the fact that English includes loanwords with diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet.
I haven’t been to Slovenia, so I can’t help you with Žižek. But again, that doesn’t change the fact that English includes loanwords with diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet.
21, it’s still just the letter U even with an accent mark
Yeah no, 21 is ‘u’. It’s a different letter. Otherwise it wouldn’t be written differently.
In Turkish, French, or Finnish it is a different letter. In English it’s a subtype of a certain letter.
Different languages are different. Turkiye should be just fine, shiuld that feel better to you.
Learn to read dumbass
I’d be really interested to see this broken down into carbon output by corporations vs individuals, and by the top 1% in wealth vs. everyone else - I bet it would be quite telling.
this is why i hate per capita, Australia is listed 3rd and India last despite Australia’s co2 emissions going down and India’s increasing by over 5 Australia’s in the last 20 years
Planet doesn’t care about per capita
Even this type of data is overly decontextualized without considering cumulative (not annual) emissions since the industrial revolution (globally), proportion of corporate contribution and off shoring. Per capita is important too.
With regard to developing nations, emissions will go up as people get pulled out of poverty and have lifestyles more like people in developed nations. It’s hard to ask them not to pursue that or to delay it without coming across as hypocritical. Especially since developed nations are responsible for 50% of cumulative emissions, historically, despite being 20% of the global population (and have a higher quality of life so show for it).
Now with the US/Israel’s war in Iran more nations in Asia will be burning coal due to oil supply constraints. It’s easy to show a graph blaming those nations for resorting to that but several are already rationing gasoline (Americans would lose their minds lol) and the people are absolutely struggling for it.
This is the type of decontextualization that Western nations employ to pressure nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia and its often is not received well, understandably.
there were no solar panels during the industrial revolution, i care about what’s being emitted today, what is the point of us reducing our emissions for china and india ro simply slurp up all the savings and then some?
people in the west worried about climate change while somehow ignoring the elephant in the room
Sure that’s one way to look at it but it’s short sighted in my view. From the other perspective it comes across as the West saying they could pollute as much as they wanted to in order give their people a better life and now everyone else has to operate under strict constraints or get a finger wagging from the largest contributers to CO2 emissions in human history. That’s a lot of hypocrisy.
You’re right that solar panels do exist now. It should be noted that China has done more with renewables and getting ICE vehicles off the road than any Western country, many of which seem to be stuck in old habits. Nations like India and China are developing on a massive scale, actively integrating renewables into their expanding grids as they pull hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The average person in India and China contributes substantially less to global emissions than the average Westerner. So as their emissions increase, rather than seeing it as them cancelling out your efforts, you should be flattered that they want to live with the luxuries and privileges youve had for some time now. They are in no way less worthy of that.
Perhaps Western nations should be made to contribute less per capita than developing nations, as a way to offset their historically disproportionate contribution.
That’s a lot of hypocrisy.
Definitely not, if you look at all the emissions charts they show all western countries are in a downward trend
It should be noted that China has done more with renewables and getting ICE vehicles off the road than any Western country
That’s not true Norway has a new car 98%+ EV sales rate
If you want to go by per capita then there’s loads that have done more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
😁
The average person in India and China contributes substantially less to global emissions than the average Westerner
And rightly so! There is a lot more of them! They have a greater responsibility to reduce their emissions, just like we do compared to the coco’s islands
As said they’re doing great on the renewables front, they are also doing extremely bad on the co2 output front
Ah, fair point fair point.
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.
The planet can sustain 10x more people if they live like people in India vs Saudi Arabia or UAE…
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 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).
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
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.
You think right wing people think? Brrruhhhhh…
I wouldn’t call it undermining
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.
If it wasn’t per capita, we’d just be looking at population size graphs. It is useful information and shows what is possible. We should be looking at metrics like CO2 per unit of gdp also. It’s not just people, it’s industry. Some of chinas emissions are really other countries emissions, offshored for China to produce. China profits from it, of course.
If it wasn’t per capita, we’d just be looking at population size graphs
I duno about that, largest countries in the world including EU:
Some of chinas emissions are really other countries emissions, offshored for China to produce. China profits from it, of course.
Agreed, I’ve complained about Europes false green economy when it outsources manufacturing to China, including but not limited to
China was by far the largest supplier of solar panels, accounting for 98% of all imports
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251009-2
For a population as large as Europe it’s disappointing their aren’t more battery and solar panel manufacturers
The problem is that EU can’t compete on price. However, as they are long term it is not as much of a risk to install foreign technology that is not necessary to internet connect.
The EU is reducing, which is why per capits is important. We can see what is possible. Clearly the USA is not doing well. China has made huge inroads in green energy and I think it’s a combination of wanting to be at the forefront of new technology and a need for energy security.
As it stands, china is about triple the EU, while manufacturing for them. The USA is just burning carbon for no reason as they no longer manufacture. This will worsen until ai bubble pops. They have quite a bit of nuclear power though. Their oil based economy is just too ingrained. Similar to Saudi Arabia. Why bother reducing when oil is cheap.
I fully expect tariffs in carbon pricing to be the next trade tariff globally. Whyake the hard cuts that cost.more on your internal market when the competition does it cheaper and doesn’t care about environmental effects. It forces incentives to do the right thing and prevents the externalization of costs.
There is a massive issue with adjusting for trade though. If you just imagine a country lets call it Green, which has no emissions, and a another country Black, which is fully run on dirty fossil fuels. Now when both countries trade, the Green country imports emissions and the Black ones are lowered. It can be that dirty processes have been outsourced to the Black country or you can just have the Green country do things better.
When you take the EU and China you can see both. There are absolutely dirty processes outsourced to China, but at the same time things like electricity are dirtier in China then in the EU.
Now when both countries trade, the Green country imports emissions and the Black ones are lowered
Yeah I’m saying it’s the opposite, the green country is outsourcing dirty work to the dirty country
I didn’t downvote you btw
Yeah I’m saying it’s the opposite, the green country is outsourcing dirty work to the dirty country
Then the Green countries emissions increase for any import from the Black country, when you adjust for trade. The issue is that it is any import and not just dirty outsourced ones.
Say the Green country sells a 1000 chairs to the Black one and the Black country also sells a 1000 chairs to the Green one. Then you still have an increase in emissions, when you adjust for trade, in the Green country and falling emissions in the Black one. I certainly would not call that outsourcing emissions, as both countries could have just kept their chairs. This sort of trade happens all the time in the real world. You for example can buy German cars in Japan and Japanese cars in Germany.
This is how a net goods exporter like the EU, can have an increase in trade adjusted emissions.
Then why compare countries? Countries defined by arbitrary lines are just that. If you want to compare by arbitrary lines, then correct comparison would be to to compare a District in India and entire Australia. You could lower emissions of any country by splitting it into smaller pieces. You can reduce Australia’s emissions even more by declaring that every Australian is a separate country, every David, John, Peter in Australia will have many times lower emissions than entire country of India, consisting 1.3 billion people.
Countries defined by arbitrary lines are just that
What
Countries defined by arbitrary lines are just a group of arbitrary number of people.
defined by cultures, rules, regulations, notice which country is building a shitload of coal power plants?
https://aussie.zone/post/31299070/22308678
That is a decision they are making alone, no other country is doing this even though they could
You can reduce Australia’s emissions even more by declaring that every Australian is a separate country, every David, John, Peter in Australia will have many times lower emissions than entire country of India, consisting 1.3 billion people.
sorry you’re typing words but it’s super confusing
why are we declaring every australian is a separate country?
Because it doesn’t make sense to compare total emissions from 1.3 billion people with total emissions from 27.4 million people. 1.3 billion >>>>> 27.4 million.
You’re right, they have an even GREATER responsibility to the planet because they have so many people
It’s not my fault they had so many kids
They’re sovereign citizens.
right but whether they like it or not they are within the governance of Australia and thus are covered by the policy direction of the government of Australia, elected democratically by the people of Australia, to continue the culture and work ethic and the desires of the people within the country and the laws and trade deals we have with other countries
Oh. I was more so referring to the people on YouTube that are doing stupid shit, claim this, then get arrested anyways.
I honestly have no (serious) idea.
I mean, Aussies are punching above their weight with emissions still while they have made incredible progress on the energy transition and generally have good policies.
One notable thing Australia needs to work on is coal use which is high, in the coming years this will start to drop off massively since Australia is still the lucky country when considering the next generation of energy production.
The graph is good, and soon you’ll be able to see Australia drop down the list of countries in a very satisfying way.
So your complain is that the chart lacks a time axis, not that it’s per-capita?
You’re right. They’re pushing the blame toward the people. As if the people of Saudi Arabia have any real say over industry choices.
Per capita emissions do not accurately demonstrate total annual emissions amounts, but the average headline reader doesn’t understand that, making this infographic only partially useful.
What woild you say shows better what the emissions of one person living in a country are?
Because that’s the only number you can use for comparing countries. The climate won’t be aaved by splitting China into one hundred independent countries. The largest producer of greenhouse gases would disappear from the statistics, but nothing about how much if those gases there are in the atmosphere would be chsnged.
“This chart doesn’t properly convey the information it’s not designed to convey!”
Thanks for your input.
It’s called multiplication…
And then division.
Also subtraction, in the case of less corrupt politicians
