Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
But they haven’t caught US yet!
United States: The average American emits roughly 14 to 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
China: The average Chinese citizen emits about 8.7 to 9.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Next question: what’s the average CO2 emission per capita of Billionaires?
A billionaire’s total average carbon footprint is roughly 1.9 million to 3 million metric tons of (CO_{2}) equivalent ((CO_{2}e)) per year.
So, Billionaire’s income ratio is around 500,000:1 of an average US citizen, but their CO2 emissions are only about 170,000x - that makes Billionaires almost 3x greener with their greenbacks than an SUV commuting wage slave.
I mean, sure. But the atmosphere and climate aren’t going to care about per capita emissions. Total emissions are what matter.
So, is it easier to change the behavior of 3500 people who can do whatever they want, 340 million people most of whom have some choices in their lifestyle, or 1.4 billion people of whom about half are just doing what it takes to survive?
“Easy” is irrelevant. The climate doesn’t care about which is easier.
The simple fact is that China accounts for 1/3 of total global emissions. If the US went completely carbon neutral today, global emissions would be cut from 38.6 Billion tons to… 33.7 Billion tons.
If China went completely carbon neutral we’d drop from 38.6 Billion tons to 26.3 Billion.
Everyone needs to cut their emissions. China is actively doing the most damage to the climate, however.
If Elon musk contributed 90% as much as all of Germany would you be equally happy saying Germany’s 80 million people held more responsibility than Musk for their emissions? Per capita is the only measure that makes sense as it is how much each person is contributing.
Another way of looking at it, Yunnan creates far less CO2 than the USA so by your logic the USA is worse than it. Repeat for every other Chinese province.
And because total emissions matter, we all have a bigger responsibility to reduce our per-capita output if we’re above others. The atmosphere and climate don’t care about countries, so each American still has a much higher responsibility to change their society than each Chinese does.
I have literally said we all do need to cut our emissions. Not sure what you’re arguing against here lol.
I’m arguing against the assertion that “China is doing the most damage to the climate”. It’s obvious that the country with more citizens will cause more emissions, and it’s also completely useless! Or would you suddenly change your mind if China split into 5 countries, all less populous than the US?
Why should a Chinese person reduce their emissions, while each American emits so much more? You insist that arbitrary geographic divisions are somehow relevant, but they aren’t.
And now that I know you can’t read…
I have literally said we all do need to cut our emissions
Except one thing is a fact. Americans HAVE been cutting emissions, for 20 years now. US carbon emissions peaked in 2006. Current US emissions are at the lowest level they have been in 38 years.
China is STILL INCREASING emissions.
China has a centrally planned single party economy. They have one government that makes these choices, and they have been and are consciously choosing to pursue emissions heavy power and manufacturing to secure economic dominance. It’s extremely relevant here.
India has more people and 1/4 the emissions of China. Though they are also increasing.
Buddy, if you spend a couple seconds thinking about my question, you might notice that “We all do need to cut our emissions” is not an answer. I’ll try to put it in more explicit terms, try not knee-jerk-reacting this time:
Why should a person in China stop increasing their emissions to make profits, while so many people in America make so much profit/save money by emitting so much more on average?
You’re acting like this question obviously has a definitive answer, but it doesn’t!
Look, it’s totally fine to criticize China’s rising emissions on their own. But it’s really, really dumb to contrast their total with total US emissions - especially when you don’t mention anything about how many emissions are caused to supply the west with stuff. It’s great that US emissions are going down, but they’re still way too high because they provide cover for other nations to save money by using fossil fuels just a bit longer. Why are other countries morally wrong in climbing towards the level of America, as long as they stay below?
Your argument is that people who make enough money that they don’t have to spend all their money… Spend their money less than those who do spend all their money.
I was going more for the absurdity of a single person emitting more CO2 than a township of 150,000 people, plus the underutilization / hoarding of this imaginary construct: money by the people who have more than they need - as you allude to.
I also agree: the price of things does frequently correlate with CO2 emitted. Even when you hire someone for a service that emits virtually no CO2, what do they do with that money? Turn around and spend it on things that do emit CO2. Much of the cost of goods has to do with the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver the good (again cost correlating with CO2 emissions).
The only “industry” I can think of that moves significant money around without generating CO2 directly is finance, though when the money quits running through finance’s internal spin-cycle and finally hits the real world, it’s again purchasing the relase of CO2.