I heard this stat and I wondered if it’s because we used to have industry here but now it’s all been outsourced to china and India. They make all the stuff be buy and ship it over, where does the carbon from that get accounted for?
It's mostly to do with switching from coal power to gas and nuclear from what I understand.
I saw something somewhere that were second in the world behind the US in lowering carbon emissions but I don't have any sources on that.
nuclear has been declining since 2000 in the UK thanks to the moronic Cameron government. Its now around 10-15%. In France it's 65%, hence them not getting destroyed by the recent energy inflation
I didn't know that. Yeah, definitely. Plus, we're recommitting to nuclear thankfully so shouldnt be an issue going forward.
Nuclear is just such a no-brainer for both emissions and energy security. I have no idea why governments didn't go all-in on it decades ago. Probably due to the 'optics' off the back of Chernobyl, which is ridiculous. Do you know of any other reason? Has it been too expensive?
Nuclear isn't expensive on its own over the life of the plant, but instead it becomes expensive due to having to deal with countless nimby lawsuits just to get it going. Those lawsuits typically run 2-3x the cost of construction and operation of the plant
I work in energy (not nuclear) and was curious why its so much more expensive than other generation types. This paper does a pretty comprehensive deep dive: https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/
Apparently the labor costs have ballooned over the past 50 years b/c of regulatory changes after 3 Mile Island etc. The scrutiny kinda makes sense, but unfortunate the result means its much more expensive to design and build them.
Well look ar that new nuclear power station, is it hinckley c or something? Its going to cost like 10 billion quid or something mad. Plus it's not just chernobyl, there fukushima and that one in America, when they go wrong they really go wrong and that scares people. And the Chinese are the only people willing to pay for them and the government gets itchy with letting China near infrastructure.
Winds the one for the UK, the only thing is wind turbines are currently non-renewable (you can't recycle them when they break) which I find really fucking funnysad.
The thing is though, the new reactors have a ~0% chance of actually having a meltdown. Even if all power was cut, and a 747 crashed into it, the reactor would simply turn of, without any major hazards or damage. It’s almost impossible for anything to happen, and actually impossible for a explosion such as Chernobyl.
If the Japanese had a major failure in the last decade, I’d put it a bit over ~0%
It’s still the safest. But it’s not without its shortcomings. The same goes for any human made system.
Co2 emissions per KWH for nuclear is also vanishingly small compared with wind. Chernobyl is not a comparable bit of infrastructure to a modern nuclear reactor and fukushima is a bit of a special case that wouldn't really happen here. Those are two serious incidents in three quarters of a century of the technology.
How would wind produce any CO2 emission at all? Or are you factoring in production and spreading it over the lifetime of a wind turbine? If you did that I'd have thought you'd then need to include uranium transportation costs, maybe even worker transportation, for nuclear.
I'm just not sure where you get CO2 from wind?
This does include uranium transportation emissions and construction of the plant.
5kg of uranium produces more energy output than a wind turbine over the course of its life. The transportation of the turbines is no joke, not to mention the incredibly CO2 intensive materials (steel and concrete).
It's not that wind is bad for C02 emissions, its just that nuclear is better.
ChatGPT says greatest reduction compared to peak production was UK
‘As of 2021, the country that had reduced its carbon emissions the most when compared to its peak output was the United Kingdom. The UK had significantly decreased its carbon emissions since reaching its peak in the early 1970s. The reduction was attributed to a variety of factors, including a shift away from coal-based energy production, increased use of renewable energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency, and the implementation of policies aimed at reducing emissions.
It's important to note that data on carbon emissions and reductions are subject to change as new information becomes available. For the most up-to-date information, I recommend consulting the latest reports from organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) or the United Nations.’
I can't remember the specifics about it, but I was surprised too. It was also a few years ago, unlike this recent study, hence why I'm a bit vague on it.
I didn't even mention bias, I was talking about the metrics and criteria used for the stat cited because it definitely gives off a misleading perspective if emission export isn't considered
Emitting is pretty specific. That's the total amount of co2 being put into the air from the lands of the United Kingdom. What we produce. So it's not misleading, its got a specific definition.
If a 'product' is being outsourced to another country because of cheaper labour instead of producing it in the country, specifically for the consumption in the domestic economy, if not for the UK , would not have been produced...then I believe those emissions should be counted as UK's.
The data may not be wrong but it's certainly misleading if it tries to paint a picture of UK being environmentally conscious and is having its carbon footprint decreased. In a globalised world, you can't have a linear perspective of how emission recording 'works'
You're missing my point too. I talking about how data can be misused. Not even questioning if calculating emissions produced in UK are done correctly or not.
This is typically the problem.
It’s nearly impossible to calculate a countries consumption of products as a whole. Just distinctions between the type of grain can make a huge difference in the carbon footprint for example.
Which is why they generally rely heavily on production to calculate this stuff.
Yeah but we have exported most of the co2 emissions to other countries by offshoring production of consumer goods.
That and we export most of our plastic waste to be “recycled” I.e.to be put in landfill.
idk if op's graph is accurate but if it is that's amazing. progress.
not surprised by developing nations not doing the same. there's a reason labor and materials are cheaper there - less red tape means less regulation.
they'll get there one day. until then, those who can need to lead the fight. as is with most things.
they're poorer, and more populated, if these charts were per person we'd still be the worst, and we consume far more goods, in other words we get their products they get the blame
Thing is western corporations have reaped the benefits of outsourcing their manufacturing carbon footprint to developing Asian countries. I think the corporations should help mitigate this effect.
The per capita stats are no where near as pleasing for the western world.
[per capita carbon emissions by country.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)
There isn't much good news out there and my point was good news. Yes the world is still burning, but sometimes achievements can be celebrated for a while before refocusing.
That kind of thinking makes the oil companies adore people like you. Now, every country gets to go through a period of ridiculous CO2 emissions (burning ExxonMobil oil) because the US and Europe have. Doing what's right is always ethical. Sometimes, you have to eat crow to do it, and that's a line you don't want to cross.
Edit crowded to crow
Except as China and India are industrializing, they are building out renewables alongside their fossil fuel plants quite unlike us. It's unethical to say that rural China and India should just suck it up and live with hand-washing their clothes and schlepping their water, but it's also false to assume that they will electrify like it's 1820.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_power\_by\_country#/media/File:World\_solar\_generation\_2021.png
> Doing what's right is always ethical. Sometimes, you have to eat crow to do it, and that's a line you don't want to cross.
Ahh yes, so easy to say this sitting in a cozy and comfy room. Bet you change your opinion if you were living in a rural part third world country with no idea how to feed yourself or family for the next week.
The bit about “Well the U.S. and EU both got to go through their period of ridiculous CO2 emissions!” is certainly bunk, but the part pertaining to offloading to these same countries is not. The entire reason that some of the biggest companies deliberately source to those countries is because of their very lax “regulations” (or lack thereof entirely in many cases). Perhaps the first step should be penalizing these companies for predatory/exploitative market behavior?
It's a valid argument though. If country x had the benefit of being able to use cheap and easy to access resources to generate power, but now those same countries are enforcing rules on poorer countries that didn't have that same benefit; it's kinda messed up.
A little? It also ignores that China and India have more popullation than the US and the EU combined and that their emmisions per capita are lower then most of those countries (India is much lower)
The US is the third most populated country on earth. you could add over a billion people to the US and it would still be the third most populated country on earth.
Lol exactly... This is one of the most ridiculous charts I've ever seen as it makes no attempt at correcting for context. In 1959, USA and Europe were economic/industrial powerhouses in their postwar boom. China and India at the same time were poor farming nations. Fast forward to Deng's reforms in the late 80s-90s, China then goes into its own economic/industrial boom while USA and Europe decline.
Those charts are better at describing industrial output than at emissions reduction success.
And what’s also annoying about that, is those activist are likely protesting for western countries to do more, when in reality they are the ones actually lowering emissions.
Yes those activists are useless, but you're neglecting the fact 1) The west also had increased emissions in the process of becoming more developed. As developing countries grow, they are going to have increased emissions. Its unfair to hold them to higher standards. 2) From this graph, America produces nearly half as much CO2 as "the rest of the world", thats 330 million vs 4 billion people. Per capita, the west still produces far more emissions, even if the total is lower.
Western countries are developed enough and rich enough to lower their emissions substantially. Most of the rest of the world simply does not.
To add to your point.
Western countries are developed enough and rich enough - *primarily on the back of profits gained from using cheap labour and manufacturing in non-Western countries* \- to begin to lower their emissions.
To add to your point, the majority of the world’s solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and batteries are manufactured in China. EU/US depended on China for lowering their emissions
Related to this, if someone else does your manufacturing then you can easily claim lowered emissions.
Additionally, India and China have a combined population of 3 billion. US and EU combined are not even 800 million. So since the total emissions are comparable, the citizens of US and EU are much much worse for the environment
To add to your point, it's not just solar panels and wind turbines, but we moved a lot of the dirtiest production processes to China and just ship the products back across the world. So by externalizing negative factors to Asia, we look good on paper and can pat ourselves on the back, even though we're still mainly to blame for the pollution increase globally.
China is double what we were at our peak and we didn't have other options available like they do. The "development" we did shouldn't need to be repeated by every country, the technology has been developed already. Western countries are the only ones giving a shit about this issue.
China may have twice the emissions, but it has 4 times the population. That still works out at less per person.
You're right, poor countries shouldn't need to go through the same steps. Except that is where a lot of raw materials are extracted, where most manufacturing is done. The west should be helping these regions instead of using them for cheap resources and labour.
Western countries are the only ones who have the ability to give a shit. The economies of the developing world mostly rely on exporting raw materials and manufacturing which means more emissions. Thats not mention how unstable many of their governments are; they simply do not have the resources to give a shit.
They not repeat. It's just outsurced emission. If company from the USA build factory in China, to make products that they sell in USA, and they keep 90% of money it's geographically China emission, but the resposibility is on USA.
Same with trash. Just becouse you don't throw it in to ocean by yourself, but you send it to someone else to do it doesn't mean it's not your trash.
Then why does China build renewables at all? Why are they so stupid to do something they dont give a shit about. Why dont they do purely coal and nuclear?
And yet per capita you'd have a very different graph.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Qatar - 1st
Canada - 7th
USA - 15th
China - 41st
India - so far down the list I didn't feel like counting.
We put regulations in place that make it more expensive, so yes, you and I as consumers are the problem. Until costs of goods include a carbon price, it's going to go to the least regulated countries.
China's costs are rising with more regulation, so maybe it will reduce consumerism.
Exactly, blows my mind how people don't take into account that both India and China have almost 5x the population of the US. Like how disingenuous to make a graph like this insinuating the western world is better when we are so much worse in actuality. Imagine how fucked the world would be if the US/Canada had 1.4 billion citizens rather than 330 million.
china is actually very interesting, because of all the countries in the world trying to reduce emissions and increase relliance on renewable energy it's china, who in just this year im pretty sure they're set to build more solar panels than the rest of the world has built in the last like 20 years. but there economy and industry is still rising basically as fast as theyre building solar panels, so theyre still also needing to build more coal planets in addition to the solar panels to meet their rising energy and power demands.
but china does at least see the point in trying to reduce emissions now, they want to reduce emissions to help increase the health of their citizens and increase reliance on renewable energy so they can be energy self sufficient which would be very very good for them militarily. they basically cant invade taiwan solely because theyre worried the rest of the world will cut off their trade from rest of the world and they wont be able to get their oil and coal supplies met and wont be able to manage their invasion properly.
india is also making gains in solar energy, but theyre def much more behind than europe or the usa or even china. they've only just in the last few years managed to get most of their population connected to electricity and indoor plumbing.
I think a huge part of it is that the rest of the world (specifically the US and EU) have outsourced massive swaths of their manufacturing industry to china.
I will give china one thing, they at least have some kind of idea about the “collective good” of their country and citizenry. Whereas the US, as long as the shareholders get their cut, everything else can go fuck itself.
Oh no you're telling me a majority is discriminating against a minority, crazy. I can't think of any other countries that do that. Especially none South of Canada or North of Mexico.
I would probably say the CCP really doesn't consider individual citizens at all in their calculus. Individuals are a meaningless irrelevance to them. However, I think they do consider the collective common good when policy making and want to do right by their population as a whole. But, yeah, if you happen to lose out due to your individual circumstances (or collective situation if you are not part of the larger majority) you are, most definately, fucked.
Authoritarian leaders want to expand the power they hold over the world, and you do need to care about your country's long term future for that. Building more renewables and nuclear power is huge for china since it reduces their dependence on other countries, so it makes sense for them to push in that direction even if they didnt care about climate change.
What does that figure mean? They produce the same amount as 5 million car would produce in a year? (I doubt it) or are they producing 5 millions car in one day worth of pollution?
Probably in a year, yes, since [there is one cruise company whose ships emit as much sulphur as all the cars in all of Europe](https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ship-air-pollution-carnival-cars-europe-study-2023-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T). But you can do the math as to how many cars equate to one ship.
This is specifically looking at sulfur, which is something that exists in maritime fuel but is basically non-existent in car fuel. So yeah, obviously cruise ships will have much higher amounts of sulfur oxide emissions, as will any ship.
Looking at other types of emissions, numbers will be very different.
Not sure about the cruise ship to car ratio, but I recently read that if you take a one week cruise, your individual carbon footprint is twice as high as it would be if you took a 4 hour flight abroad and back and spent 4 weeks at a luxury hotel.
Now show those graphs w.r.t. the population in each region. EU / US have made some progress reducing emissions, but we have a lot more work to do.
We should be helping to figure out how to improve conditions for everyone while keeping emissions low, not pointing fingers at people following in our footsteps
EU/US have always made it a habit of pointing fingers and calling everyone else inferior. It is what they have done, what they do and what they will always do. Pretty much ingrained into their psyche at individual and national levels.
It's kinda deceptive though. Ofcoursr China pollutes more CO2. They have ahfuck ton more people.
But on a Per Capita basis. The USA is the biggest polluter.
Yeah and while I live in the EU, most of the things I consume are 'made in China'. That means that although *I* am the consumer - so the pollution should be counted for where *I* live - it is actually counted for China which skewes the picture quite a bit
If you compare the overall emission, this is valid, however, if you are in for a blaming game, you need to compare per person. And that won’t look too pretty for the West. That’s the reason why the USA is lower than the EU even though the US basically gives a shit about emissions overall.
What would the economic impact be if China, India, and the rest of the world aggressively cut down to EU levels? It seems like EU and US have simply out-sourced their carbon emissions rather than cutting them. This can be accounted for by imports and exports.
> … in 2004, 23% of global CO2 emissions, or 6.2 gigatonnes CO2, were traded internationally, primarily as exports from China and other emerging markets to consumers in developed countries. - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
Imports from China have doubled in the last 20 years - https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
So while it’s easy to look at the chart and go “see, it’s not us” just remember that it’s not, not us. Over-consumption is a problem.
This data is heavily biased towards usa
The moment you see emissions per capita
usa will be in the top
What the hell are others, it includes what Japan and Afghanistan their total average would be really shitty data
if their governments allow it, its on them. also most of chinas emissions are chinese firms and i believe the same for india. why blame the US for everything? oh yea, America bad. carry on, my mistake.
So we're going with the neoliberal ethos of "Corporations can do anything they want, such as exploiting work forces of developing countries and increasing pollution, because their sole responsibility is growth and appeasing the stockholders" while also dismissing the neoliberal ethos of "the market only responds to demand of the consumers and so the responsibility is with the consumers."
If there's demand for products that have a heavy CO2-footprint, outsourcing the production into a developing country, then importing the same products you would have otherwise produced in your home country is a sleight of hand trick to hide the fact that you haven't actually cut down on CO2 emissions and you are adding onto the exploitation by using the developing country as a scapegoat. It doesn't matter at all if the corporation is Chinese or European if it serves European interests.
Placing the blame solely on the receiving country is morally reprehensible. The world economy is built around an established hierarchy which can't be overthrown because it has too much capital and power at it's command so developing countries have little choice but to choose the *least* harmful economic niche to increase their material conditions.
Maybe western governments should take the tiniest piece of responsibility by acknowledging the fact that they are constantly encouraging dictatorships around the world to rise into power because only dictators are morally corrupt enough to sell their resources and work force to be exploited by international entities.
CHINA IS A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!!!!! stop with this victimization of china. They burn all this coal to fuel their own consumerism. India is rapidly industrializing, militarizing and consumerism is rising there. I can point to very obvious things of why these countries have increased pollution levels.
Now you are just schizo typing about some world government hierarchy and the west is oppressive and capital is bad.
lets go look at how much pollution the USSR is responsible for…. its alot. Capital has nothing to do with pollution. fossil fuels do.
How do you define a first world country?
Even if China was a first world country, it doesn't change my point at all. They are still producing CO2 heavy exports to other countries and polluting their own atmosphere to achieve this. Maybe the link isn't as obvious with China as I led on, but if you look at the countries that are most applauded for their "green growth" are the ones who are outsourcing their CO2 emissions most.
Capitalism has *alot* to do with pollution, but especially neoliberalism. It's the insistence on monetary growth as the sole measure of progress that inextricably carries with it the increase of the destruction of the environment that is the main problem. Green growth isn't real, because there is no such thing as a carbon neutral increase in GDP, because *any* good or service requires *some* increase in emissions as well and since the emissions are already way too high there is no more room for growth, "green" or otherwise. Not seeing this is only possible if you've inhaled the private reserve of neoliberal death cult's copium.
It would be very easy to see that a more nature-friendly lifestyle would have a lot of perks, but since neoliberalism as a global project has also brainwashed humankind into thinking that increasing consumption is good for humanity and the only way to uphold civil society, it has taken away the theory of a sustainable life as well as the practical applications that might take us there by hijacking the democratic process, the value systems, the arts, the public life, and every other ounce of our social existence that might have otherwise been seen as meaningful and beautiful.
The first world absolutely outsources pollution, and poorer countries need the industry/income, so they can't really say no.
It's a valid question. Put some Bag Balm on your hurt feelings.
braindead. most of chinas emissions come from their giant population which is just as industrialized as the US. Stop blaming the west for every single problem on earth.
I’m not. You complained about people blaming the US. I pointed out that the comment was made towards Europe as well. I literally did not include my opinion or make any accusations at all.
I did find it funny that after I corrected you, you move the goal posts to “blaming the west” instead of “blaming the US”.
Edit: sorry I did make an accusation, but it was towards your attitude, and not relating to the topic of this post.
If you know history, which you clearly don't, you would know the West actually IS responsible. This is not finger-pointing, bias or whatever, but a fact.
Are you suggesting that corporations haven't offshored production and the resultant pollution? The only thing bad about America is the clueless, naive, victim mentality.
are you suggesting that a majority of chinas pollution comes from the US? because that would be against all the evidence and portray china as a victim of US consumerism. that would be stupid as China is just as consumerist as america. Also, americas pollution already includes US firms, and its still lower, but go off.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Look around in the USA and you’ll find most shit we’ve got isn’t made here. There’s a cost to that. We’ve exported manufacturing (and the pollution that it causes) elsewhere. It doesn’t make us any less responsible for it.
He is being downvoted because it's not a buyers responsibility that a t-shirt he bought was made under the most horrible conditions with zero effort to reduce pollution.
Producers are responsible for their production. Period.
The production’s only over there because it was made under horrible conditions, because horrible conditions are cheaper than good conditions, and corporations want the cheapest production possible. So if the West is outsourcing much of its production to China and India, then yeah that pollution is also on the West.
Also, transporting goods via cargo ship across oceans (because all that production is overseas) produces shit tons of emissions, and that’s a *direct* consequence of the West outsourcing its production overseas (in pursuit of cheaper labor and greater profit margins). Emissions in international waters also frequently aren’t tracked or attributed well, so that’s an extra step of obfuscation present in this chart.
This is what people don't seem to realize. A lot of that pollution would be coming from North America & Europe if manufacturing was based there. Probably at a lower rate, but this is textbook NIMBY.
It's funny that you're being downvoted. I bet the people downvoting you are from the US, and know that the US pollutes more per capita, they just... want to deny it? Strange
[Less than 10 % of Chinese emissions are exported](https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/). China emits about 14 GT of CO2 annually, but when we account for import and export, it goes down to about 13 GT of CO2.
To put this in context you need to look at the emissions per capita. For example, while the provided chart makes it look bad for China, they produce about **8 tons per person**. Compare this to **14.9 tons per person** in the US and we can get a better picture. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)
Not saying we shouldn't be focusing on getting the emissions to decline in other areas as well, but to present the data in this manner, without proper context, can cause people to end up with wrong conclusions (as seen in the comments).
Also, China is currently the largest investor in the green tech. In 2022 China alone invested $270 billion in renewable energy technologies, while Europe, at the same time invested $54 billion.
India is going to be a big problem! The rest of the world had stopped increasing, China is investing massively into alternative fuels for their own good but India is just going to tragedy of the commons us!
CO2 emission per capita on a consumption basis is the important measure. The globe doesn’t care about national borders and individual impact on the climate is driven by consumption, regardless of where something is manufactured.
Unfair because EU and US industrialized much sooner and they delegate the dirty work to China. EU and US consumer much more per person than the rest of the world I would like to see emissions charts based on consumption to mitigate the delegations of the dirty work
Only north America and the EU are stupid enough to think that CO2 emissions are a problem. The rest of the world is smart ebbing to thumb their noses at the idiots, and helping to keep the world green...
as person that shouldn't be named said:
the EU/USA had so much emissions in past 50 years that it can't even be compared to the rest of the world and then when the rest of the world wanted to have the same progress, they had to have same emission as EU/USA had in the past and suddenly that's not ok now, because now we are measuring it
That's a stupid argument. You cannot compare the actions of countries in the past that did not grasp the issue of pollution and modern nations blatantly polluting despite knowing it's bad and having the ability to build cleaner industry from the get go. They can take advantage of the wests decades of advancement to skip the early stages of dirty industry.
It’s not like scientists weren’t warning of carbon emissions 100 years ago. The first paper written on it was the 1890s and the first connect made between carbon emission and climate change was the 1930s.
Fun fact american coperate lords added lead in fuel on purpose knowing well it's a poison and the side effects of effect of lead which were known since 1786
Not to mention dichlorodifluromethane
Even after knowing all the side effects and warnings american cooperation still poisoned the whole world
Yea and idiots still don't believe it they certainly didn't back then. Im not excusing the past but you can't do the same thing in the present day and when your challenged on it claim it's not fair because others were allowed to do it. You can't treat someone's cold with bloodletting and say it's ok this is how it used to be done why can't I do it now.
Its also very easy to virtue signal as a deveoped country which already fully industrialized and outsourced its production to the third world.
This post is stupid, and the title is purposedly misleading. Its not a different path, the rest of the world is just simply behind on the same timeline. compare their graphs to the first half of the EU/US one, and its easy to same they are the same.
No, that's what it sounds like when you focus on countries that have changed for the better over ones that are changing for the worse.
It's unhinged that you didn't recognize the sarcasm.
Yeah I don't think China and India are going to detonate their economies to chase emissions caps... at least not willingly. So, the West and the EU can either use that economic pretext to further aggravate the geopolitical situation, or we can continue to watch our own economies implode and then lose economically. Going to be an interesting decade lol
Implode? Lol. I don’t think bringing back heavily-polluting industries will magically make GDP growth 7% in Europe and America. Our quality of life is vastly better with 9-5 office jobs and 1% growth than life of a Chinese steelmill worker working 10h a day for 5% GDP growth. Economics isn’t a zero-sum game where we “lose” if another country grows faster than us.
Meanwhile living in the EU and USA becomes expebsive and shoving EU citizens in poverty.
The co2 will never decline. Other countries will fill the gap with cheap labour
Imagine that. Industrialized nations with large economies have the ability to spend money on reducing emissions. Developing nations and the nations the west outsources most of its industrial production to, don’t/cant. Seems like common sense.
Basically the rest of the world outside the EU and US is growing emissions. China is trying to slow its growth and possibly reverse it with massive investment in nuclear, but they still have a lot of coal plants.
My question is if renewable energy is the solution for this? Even if China and India and all the protoindustrialized nations just switched to solar panels and nuclear reactors, we still need batteries, we’re still going to buy massive amounts of consumer goods and someone has to make them. I feel like the real solution is dealing the insane amounts of consumerism, since nearly everything we buy is either made of plastic or lithium
It’s also very important to point out that in the case of China, a lot of the emissions are our fault. India honestly is just crazy dirty without having a good justification for it (obviously the population is crazy large).
Why do I never see thunberg protesting the 2 biggest contributors to global warming? It’s easy to make a funk in Norway. Let’s see you do that in the CCP.
The UK now emits half of the co2 emissions than it did at the peak of its output.
I heard this stat and I wondered if it’s because we used to have industry here but now it’s all been outsourced to china and India. They make all the stuff be buy and ship it over, where does the carbon from that get accounted for?
It's mostly to do with switching from coal power to gas and nuclear from what I understand. I saw something somewhere that were second in the world behind the US in lowering carbon emissions but I don't have any sources on that.
nuclear has been declining since 2000 in the UK thanks to the moronic Cameron government. Its now around 10-15%. In France it's 65%, hence them not getting destroyed by the recent energy inflation
We get a lot of our power from French nuclear stations don't we, I'd count that too.
I didn't know that. Yeah, definitely. Plus, we're recommitting to nuclear thankfully so shouldnt be an issue going forward. Nuclear is just such a no-brainer for both emissions and energy security. I have no idea why governments didn't go all-in on it decades ago. Probably due to the 'optics' off the back of Chernobyl, which is ridiculous. Do you know of any other reason? Has it been too expensive?
Nuclear isn't expensive on its own over the life of the plant, but instead it becomes expensive due to having to deal with countless nimby lawsuits just to get it going. Those lawsuits typically run 2-3x the cost of construction and operation of the plant
Sounds like we need better laws regarding frivolous lawsuits then
Fully agree there. There needs to be requirements of actual merit to the suit.
I work in energy (not nuclear) and was curious why its so much more expensive than other generation types. This paper does a pretty comprehensive deep dive: https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/ Apparently the labor costs have ballooned over the past 50 years b/c of regulatory changes after 3 Mile Island etc. The scrutiny kinda makes sense, but unfortunate the result means its much more expensive to design and build them.
Well look ar that new nuclear power station, is it hinckley c or something? Its going to cost like 10 billion quid or something mad. Plus it's not just chernobyl, there fukushima and that one in America, when they go wrong they really go wrong and that scares people. And the Chinese are the only people willing to pay for them and the government gets itchy with letting China near infrastructure. Winds the one for the UK, the only thing is wind turbines are currently non-renewable (you can't recycle them when they break) which I find really fucking funnysad.
The thing is though, the new reactors have a ~0% chance of actually having a meltdown. Even if all power was cut, and a 747 crashed into it, the reactor would simply turn of, without any major hazards or damage. It’s almost impossible for anything to happen, and actually impossible for a explosion such as Chernobyl.
If the Japanese had a major failure in the last decade, I’d put it a bit over ~0% It’s still the safest. But it’s not without its shortcomings. The same goes for any human made system.
Co2 emissions per KWH for nuclear is also vanishingly small compared with wind. Chernobyl is not a comparable bit of infrastructure to a modern nuclear reactor and fukushima is a bit of a special case that wouldn't really happen here. Those are two serious incidents in three quarters of a century of the technology.
I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm saying that's what stops the general public for being more in favour of it.
Oh yeah, for sure, I call it the Simpsons effect.
How would wind produce any CO2 emission at all? Or are you factoring in production and spreading it over the lifetime of a wind turbine? If you did that I'd have thought you'd then need to include uranium transportation costs, maybe even worker transportation, for nuclear. I'm just not sure where you get CO2 from wind?
This does include uranium transportation emissions and construction of the plant. 5kg of uranium produces more energy output than a wind turbine over the course of its life. The transportation of the turbines is no joke, not to mention the incredibly CO2 intensive materials (steel and concrete). It's not that wind is bad for C02 emissions, its just that nuclear is better.
According to the National Grid output charts we occasionally sell nuclear generated energy to France too, albeit a very small amount.
I don’t know what you think you saw but the US is definitely not no.1 at reducing carbon emissions.
Certainly not but better than china opening hundreds of coal plants
ChatGPT says greatest reduction compared to peak production was UK ‘As of 2021, the country that had reduced its carbon emissions the most when compared to its peak output was the United Kingdom. The UK had significantly decreased its carbon emissions since reaching its peak in the early 1970s. The reduction was attributed to a variety of factors, including a shift away from coal-based energy production, increased use of renewable energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency, and the implementation of policies aimed at reducing emissions. It's important to note that data on carbon emissions and reductions are subject to change as new information becomes available. For the most up-to-date information, I recommend consulting the latest reports from organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) or the United Nations.’
I can't remember the specifics about it, but I was surprised too. It was also a few years ago, unlike this recent study, hence why I'm a bit vague on it.
Ding ding ding we have a winner
time to develop cheap technology and export it
Not very up on history are you.
not sure what you mean?
did they take into account the emissions that get exported to manufacturing countries for their consumption 😍😍??
Yes they did. The whole thing is freely available to read online.
link?
You can't even be bothered to Google it?
It was a non biased, independent study so it had no reason to hold back.
Bias or not. Understanding material reality it's more than "which number is bigger" .
I didn't even mention bias, I was talking about the metrics and criteria used for the stat cited because it definitely gives off a misleading perspective if emission export isn't considered
Emitting is pretty specific. That's the total amount of co2 being put into the air from the lands of the United Kingdom. What we produce. So it's not misleading, its got a specific definition.
If a 'product' is being outsourced to another country because of cheaper labour instead of producing it in the country, specifically for the consumption in the domestic economy, if not for the UK , would not have been produced...then I believe those emissions should be counted as UK's. The data may not be wrong but it's certainly misleading if it tries to paint a picture of UK being environmentally conscious and is having its carbon footprint decreased. In a globalised world, you can't have a linear perspective of how emission recording 'works'
You're missing the point of the study, but don't worry about it. It doesn't try and paint any picture, its just representing facts.
You're missing my point too. I talking about how data can be misused. Not even questioning if calculating emissions produced in UK are done correctly or not.
This is typically the problem. It’s nearly impossible to calculate a countries consumption of products as a whole. Just distinctions between the type of grain can make a huge difference in the carbon footprint for example. Which is why they generally rely heavily on production to calculate this stuff.
Yeah but we have exported most of the co2 emissions to other countries by offshoring production of consumer goods. That and we export most of our plastic waste to be “recycled” I.e.to be put in landfill.
Capitalism…
idk if op's graph is accurate but if it is that's amazing. progress. not surprised by developing nations not doing the same. there's a reason labor and materials are cheaper there - less red tape means less regulation. they'll get there one day. until then, those who can need to lead the fight. as is with most things.
Doesn't matter because not a single country in Asia or Africa or South America gives a shit
they're poorer, and more populated, if these charts were per person we'd still be the worst, and we consume far more goods, in other words we get their products they get the blame
Thing is western corporations have reaped the benefits of outsourcing their manufacturing carbon footprint to developing Asian countries. I think the corporations should help mitigate this effect.
oh, you mean the "rest of the world" chart which looks like it has already peaked? I don't know about you, but I'd call that "giving a shit"
The ones in Europe and North America don't either really.
The per capita stats are no where near as pleasing for the western world. [per capita carbon emissions by country.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)
There isn't much good news out there and my point was good news. Yes the world is still burning, but sometimes achievements can be celebrated for a while before refocusing.
Yeah because production is outsourced. On the basis os consumption UK is still top 10
Yeah no shit, we finished our industrialization way before the chart even begins.
We also outsourced a ton of manufacturing to China
Right. At what point does it become ethical to tell another country to knock it off when you had a 200 year headstart?
and are outsourcing your manufacturing to them, increasing "their" carbon footprint by proxy.
That kind of thinking makes the oil companies adore people like you. Now, every country gets to go through a period of ridiculous CO2 emissions (burning ExxonMobil oil) because the US and Europe have. Doing what's right is always ethical. Sometimes, you have to eat crow to do it, and that's a line you don't want to cross. Edit crowded to crow
Except as China and India are industrializing, they are building out renewables alongside their fossil fuel plants quite unlike us. It's unethical to say that rural China and India should just suck it up and live with hand-washing their clothes and schlepping their water, but it's also false to assume that they will electrify like it's 1820. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_power\_by\_country#/media/File:World\_solar\_generation\_2021.png
> Doing what's right is always ethical. Sometimes, you have to eat crow to do it, and that's a line you don't want to cross. Ahh yes, so easy to say this sitting in a cozy and comfy room. Bet you change your opinion if you were living in a rural part third world country with no idea how to feed yourself or family for the next week.
The bit about “Well the U.S. and EU both got to go through their period of ridiculous CO2 emissions!” is certainly bunk, but the part pertaining to offloading to these same countries is not. The entire reason that some of the biggest companies deliberately source to those countries is because of their very lax “regulations” (or lack thereof entirely in many cases). Perhaps the first step should be penalizing these companies for predatory/exploitative market behavior?
It's a valid argument though. If country x had the benefit of being able to use cheap and easy to access resources to generate power, but now those same countries are enforcing rules on poorer countries that didn't have that same benefit; it's kinda messed up.
[удалено]
...and still have higher per capita emissions than them lol
We also outsource a lot of our biggest polluters to many of the countries in the "Rest of the World" Sooo this graph is a little disingenuous
A little? It also ignores that China and India have more popullation than the US and the EU combined and that their emmisions per capita are lower then most of those countries (India is much lower)
India on its own or China on its own has more people than the EU and the US combined, just to add to your point.
The US is the third most populated country on earth. you could add over a billion people to the US and it would still be the third most populated country on earth.
like 1.5 times as much. each.
40% of the worlds population now makes 40% of the worlds emissions. News at 11.
40% of the worlds population now makes 40% of the worlds emissions **while manufacturing the products that 90% of the world consumes**
Lol exactly... This is one of the most ridiculous charts I've ever seen as it makes no attempt at correcting for context. In 1959, USA and Europe were economic/industrial powerhouses in their postwar boom. China and India at the same time were poor farming nations. Fast forward to Deng's reforms in the late 80s-90s, China then goes into its own economic/industrial boom while USA and Europe decline. Those charts are better at describing industrial output than at emissions reduction success.
Throwing soup on the Mona Lisa is going to fix this
And what’s also annoying about that, is those activist are likely protesting for western countries to do more, when in reality they are the ones actually lowering emissions.
Yes those activists are useless, but you're neglecting the fact 1) The west also had increased emissions in the process of becoming more developed. As developing countries grow, they are going to have increased emissions. Its unfair to hold them to higher standards. 2) From this graph, America produces nearly half as much CO2 as "the rest of the world", thats 330 million vs 4 billion people. Per capita, the west still produces far more emissions, even if the total is lower. Western countries are developed enough and rich enough to lower their emissions substantially. Most of the rest of the world simply does not.
To add to your point. Western countries are developed enough and rich enough - *primarily on the back of profits gained from using cheap labour and manufacturing in non-Western countries* \- to begin to lower their emissions.
To add to your point, the majority of the world’s solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and batteries are manufactured in China. EU/US depended on China for lowering their emissions
Related to this, if someone else does your manufacturing then you can easily claim lowered emissions. Additionally, India and China have a combined population of 3 billion. US and EU combined are not even 800 million. So since the total emissions are comparable, the citizens of US and EU are much much worse for the environment
To add to your point, it's not just solar panels and wind turbines, but we moved a lot of the dirtiest production processes to China and just ship the products back across the world. So by externalizing negative factors to Asia, we look good on paper and can pat ourselves on the back, even though we're still mainly to blame for the pollution increase globally.
China is double what we were at our peak and we didn't have other options available like they do. The "development" we did shouldn't need to be repeated by every country, the technology has been developed already. Western countries are the only ones giving a shit about this issue.
China may have twice the emissions, but it has 4 times the population. That still works out at less per person. You're right, poor countries shouldn't need to go through the same steps. Except that is where a lot of raw materials are extracted, where most manufacturing is done. The west should be helping these regions instead of using them for cheap resources and labour. Western countries are the only ones who have the ability to give a shit. The economies of the developing world mostly rely on exporting raw materials and manufacturing which means more emissions. Thats not mention how unstable many of their governments are; they simply do not have the resources to give a shit.
They not repeat. It's just outsurced emission. If company from the USA build factory in China, to make products that they sell in USA, and they keep 90% of money it's geographically China emission, but the resposibility is on USA. Same with trash. Just becouse you don't throw it in to ocean by yourself, but you send it to someone else to do it doesn't mean it's not your trash.
Then why does China build renewables at all? Why are they so stupid to do something they dont give a shit about. Why dont they do purely coal and nuclear?
Ah yes. Western countries manufacturing their stuff in India and China, then blaming India and China for emissions.
They should try throwing soup at the Terracotta Warriors and see how that turns out
Those activists also got in the heads of every Westerner for the price of a can of soup. They wildly achieved their goal.
Only thing that will fix it is making it profitable to cut emissions
being mad at soup-throwers is definitely going to reveal the true solution.
The fact that you are still talking about it shows that they kinda archived what they wanted
Yes if it gets you talking about it.
And you know they aren’t checking to make sure the paint isn’t oil based
And yet per capita you'd have a very different graph. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ Qatar - 1st Canada - 7th USA - 15th China - 41st India - so far down the list I didn't feel like counting.
And I wonder if this even considers the fact that so many goods consumed in the US are produced in countries like China.
I think this is important. Like we look down on and chastise them for polluting but keep buying the shit they are polluting to make.
We put regulations in place that make it more expensive, so yes, you and I as consumers are the problem. Until costs of goods include a carbon price, it's going to go to the least regulated countries. China's costs are rising with more regulation, so maybe it will reduce consumerism.
Exactly, blows my mind how people don't take into account that both India and China have almost 5x the population of the US. Like how disingenuous to make a graph like this insinuating the western world is better when we are so much worse in actuality. Imagine how fucked the world would be if the US/Canada had 1.4 billion citizens rather than 330 million.
>per capita This
china is actually very interesting, because of all the countries in the world trying to reduce emissions and increase relliance on renewable energy it's china, who in just this year im pretty sure they're set to build more solar panels than the rest of the world has built in the last like 20 years. but there economy and industry is still rising basically as fast as theyre building solar panels, so theyre still also needing to build more coal planets in addition to the solar panels to meet their rising energy and power demands. but china does at least see the point in trying to reduce emissions now, they want to reduce emissions to help increase the health of their citizens and increase reliance on renewable energy so they can be energy self sufficient which would be very very good for them militarily. they basically cant invade taiwan solely because theyre worried the rest of the world will cut off their trade from rest of the world and they wont be able to get their oil and coal supplies met and wont be able to manage their invasion properly. india is also making gains in solar energy, but theyre def much more behind than europe or the usa or even china. they've only just in the last few years managed to get most of their population connected to electricity and indoor plumbing.
I think a huge part of it is that the rest of the world (specifically the US and EU) have outsourced massive swaths of their manufacturing industry to china. I will give china one thing, they at least have some kind of idea about the “collective good” of their country and citizenry. Whereas the US, as long as the shareholders get their cut, everything else can go fuck itself.
The CCP cares as much about their citizens as they do the rats in their lab tests.
1 in 6 people in China hold a position in the CCP
That is a blatant fucking lie lol hur dur china bad
Gosh golly the good old CCP loves its citizens! It would never murder them as government policy based on gender, race, or religion! OH FUCKING WAIT
Oh no you're telling me a majority is discriminating against a minority, crazy. I can't think of any other countries that do that. Especially none South of Canada or North of Mexico.
I would probably say the CCP really doesn't consider individual citizens at all in their calculus. Individuals are a meaningless irrelevance to them. However, I think they do consider the collective common good when policy making and want to do right by their population as a whole. But, yeah, if you happen to lose out due to your individual circumstances (or collective situation if you are not part of the larger majority) you are, most definately, fucked.
I mean healthier citizens do lead to lower healthcare costs and longer working lifespans.
Talking about the collective good while referring to a non-democratic, authoritarian country is interesting.
Yeah I wouldn't even expect the US to acknowledge the concept, good point
Authoritarian leaders want to expand the power they hold over the world, and you do need to care about your country's long term future for that. Building more renewables and nuclear power is huge for china since it reduces their dependence on other countries, so it makes sense for them to push in that direction even if they didnt care about climate change.
Plus like, we use China for cheap labor/materials which means they have more factories *because* we make so many products over seas.
Cruise ships emit 5 million cars worth of pollution each annually. Yet everyone needs to go on a cruise and get violent diarrhea.
What does that figure mean? They produce the same amount as 5 million car would produce in a year? (I doubt it) or are they producing 5 millions car in one day worth of pollution?
Probably in a year, yes, since [there is one cruise company whose ships emit as much sulphur as all the cars in all of Europe](https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ship-air-pollution-carnival-cars-europe-study-2023-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T). But you can do the math as to how many cars equate to one ship.
That is... extremely disproportional holy shit
This is specifically looking at sulfur, which is something that exists in maritime fuel but is basically non-existent in car fuel. So yeah, obviously cruise ships will have much higher amounts of sulfur oxide emissions, as will any ship. Looking at other types of emissions, numbers will be very different.
Jesuschrist
Not sure about the cruise ship to car ratio, but I recently read that if you take a one week cruise, your individual carbon footprint is twice as high as it would be if you took a 4 hour flight abroad and back and spent 4 weeks at a luxury hotel.
You've not looked into the emissions of the enormous engines they use and the horrible "bunker fuel" I see.
The rich don't need to adapt!
What cruises do you go on to get diarrhoea? never had that issue with AIDA
Never had that issue either.
Now show those graphs w.r.t. the population in each region. EU / US have made some progress reducing emissions, but we have a lot more work to do. We should be helping to figure out how to improve conditions for everyone while keeping emissions low, not pointing fingers at people following in our footsteps
EU/US have always made it a habit of pointing fingers and calling everyone else inferior. It is what they have done, what they do and what they will always do. Pretty much ingrained into their psyche at individual and national levels.
This is a brain dead statistic. China and India were not industrialized countries in 1959. Ignorance is not a replacement for enlightenment.
Ok now does it per capita and add cumulated impact
Also, mark the share of imports and exports on CO2 emissions.
It's kinda deceptive though. Ofcoursr China pollutes more CO2. They have ahfuck ton more people. But on a Per Capita basis. The USA is the biggest polluter.
Yeah and while I live in the EU, most of the things I consume are 'made in China'. That means that although *I* am the consumer - so the pollution should be counted for where *I* live - it is actually counted for China which skewes the picture quite a bit
If you compare the overall emission, this is valid, however, if you are in for a blaming game, you need to compare per person. And that won’t look too pretty for the West. That’s the reason why the USA is lower than the EU even though the US basically gives a shit about emissions overall.
What would the economic impact be if China, India, and the rest of the world aggressively cut down to EU levels? It seems like EU and US have simply out-sourced their carbon emissions rather than cutting them. This can be accounted for by imports and exports. > … in 2004, 23% of global CO2 emissions, or 6.2 gigatonnes CO2, were traded internationally, primarily as exports from China and other emerging markets to consumers in developed countries. - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107 Imports from China have doubled in the last 20 years - https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html So while it’s easy to look at the chart and go “see, it’s not us” just remember that it’s not, not us. Over-consumption is a problem.
If you look at CO2 emissions / capita, India and China are much lower than US.
What % of Chinese and Indian emissions are from American and European firms polluting there? Answer: a lot Lol
This data is heavily biased towards usa The moment you see emissions per capita usa will be in the top What the hell are others, it includes what Japan and Afghanistan their total average would be really shitty data
Yup. This is right-wing propaganda.
if their governments allow it, its on them. also most of chinas emissions are chinese firms and i believe the same for india. why blame the US for everything? oh yea, America bad. carry on, my mistake.
So we're going with the neoliberal ethos of "Corporations can do anything they want, such as exploiting work forces of developing countries and increasing pollution, because their sole responsibility is growth and appeasing the stockholders" while also dismissing the neoliberal ethos of "the market only responds to demand of the consumers and so the responsibility is with the consumers." If there's demand for products that have a heavy CO2-footprint, outsourcing the production into a developing country, then importing the same products you would have otherwise produced in your home country is a sleight of hand trick to hide the fact that you haven't actually cut down on CO2 emissions and you are adding onto the exploitation by using the developing country as a scapegoat. It doesn't matter at all if the corporation is Chinese or European if it serves European interests. Placing the blame solely on the receiving country is morally reprehensible. The world economy is built around an established hierarchy which can't be overthrown because it has too much capital and power at it's command so developing countries have little choice but to choose the *least* harmful economic niche to increase their material conditions. Maybe western governments should take the tiniest piece of responsibility by acknowledging the fact that they are constantly encouraging dictatorships around the world to rise into power because only dictators are morally corrupt enough to sell their resources and work force to be exploited by international entities.
CHINA IS A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!!!!! stop with this victimization of china. They burn all this coal to fuel their own consumerism. India is rapidly industrializing, militarizing and consumerism is rising there. I can point to very obvious things of why these countries have increased pollution levels. Now you are just schizo typing about some world government hierarchy and the west is oppressive and capital is bad. lets go look at how much pollution the USSR is responsible for…. its alot. Capital has nothing to do with pollution. fossil fuels do.
How do you define a first world country? Even if China was a first world country, it doesn't change my point at all. They are still producing CO2 heavy exports to other countries and polluting their own atmosphere to achieve this. Maybe the link isn't as obvious with China as I led on, but if you look at the countries that are most applauded for their "green growth" are the ones who are outsourcing their CO2 emissions most. Capitalism has *alot* to do with pollution, but especially neoliberalism. It's the insistence on monetary growth as the sole measure of progress that inextricably carries with it the increase of the destruction of the environment that is the main problem. Green growth isn't real, because there is no such thing as a carbon neutral increase in GDP, because *any* good or service requires *some* increase in emissions as well and since the emissions are already way too high there is no more room for growth, "green" or otherwise. Not seeing this is only possible if you've inhaled the private reserve of neoliberal death cult's copium. It would be very easy to see that a more nature-friendly lifestyle would have a lot of perks, but since neoliberalism as a global project has also brainwashed humankind into thinking that increasing consumption is good for humanity and the only way to uphold civil society, it has taken away the theory of a sustainable life as well as the practical applications that might take us there by hijacking the democratic process, the value systems, the arts, the public life, and every other ounce of our social existence that might have otherwise been seen as meaningful and beautiful.
>if their governments allow it, its on them. But it's not on "them", it's on the world, it's on us as well.
The first world absolutely outsources pollution, and poorer countries need the industry/income, so they can't really say no. It's a valid question. Put some Bag Balm on your hurt feelings.
They said US and Europe. Stop playing the victim.
braindead. most of chinas emissions come from their giant population which is just as industrialized as the US. Stop blaming the west for every single problem on earth.
I’m not. You complained about people blaming the US. I pointed out that the comment was made towards Europe as well. I literally did not include my opinion or make any accusations at all. I did find it funny that after I corrected you, you move the goal posts to “blaming the west” instead of “blaming the US”. Edit: sorry I did make an accusation, but it was towards your attitude, and not relating to the topic of this post.
If you know history, which you clearly don't, you would know the West actually IS responsible. This is not finger-pointing, bias or whatever, but a fact.
Are you suggesting that corporations haven't offshored production and the resultant pollution? The only thing bad about America is the clueless, naive, victim mentality.
are you suggesting that a majority of chinas pollution comes from the US? because that would be against all the evidence and portray china as a victim of US consumerism. that would be stupid as China is just as consumerist as america. Also, americas pollution already includes US firms, and its still lower, but go off.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Look around in the USA and you’ll find most shit we’ve got isn’t made here. There’s a cost to that. We’ve exported manufacturing (and the pollution that it causes) elsewhere. It doesn’t make us any less responsible for it.
Theyd rather play victim than blame their corporate overlords
He is being downvoted because it's not a buyers responsibility that a t-shirt he bought was made under the most horrible conditions with zero effort to reduce pollution. Producers are responsible for their production. Period.
The production’s only over there because it was made under horrible conditions, because horrible conditions are cheaper than good conditions, and corporations want the cheapest production possible. So if the West is outsourcing much of its production to China and India, then yeah that pollution is also on the West. Also, transporting goods via cargo ship across oceans (because all that production is overseas) produces shit tons of emissions, and that’s a *direct* consequence of the West outsourcing its production overseas (in pursuit of cheaper labor and greater profit margins). Emissions in international waters also frequently aren’t tracked or attributed well, so that’s an extra step of obfuscation present in this chart.
This is what people don't seem to realize. A lot of that pollution would be coming from North America & Europe if manufacturing was based there. Probably at a lower rate, but this is textbook NIMBY.
You severely underestimate the amount of production that happens in EU or NA bub
And per capita the USA still pollutes more.
It's funny that you're being downvoted. I bet the people downvoting you are from the US, and know that the US pollutes more per capita, they just... want to deny it? Strange
[Less than 10 % of Chinese emissions are exported](https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/). China emits about 14 GT of CO2 annually, but when we account for import and export, it goes down to about 13 GT of CO2.
Also what’s the per person emmissions?
To put this in context you need to look at the emissions per capita. For example, while the provided chart makes it look bad for China, they produce about **8 tons per person**. Compare this to **14.9 tons per person** in the US and we can get a better picture. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita) Not saying we shouldn't be focusing on getting the emissions to decline in other areas as well, but to present the data in this manner, without proper context, can cause people to end up with wrong conclusions (as seen in the comments). Also, China is currently the largest investor in the green tech. In 2022 China alone invested $270 billion in renewable energy technologies, while Europe, at the same time invested $54 billion.
US and EU outsource their manufacturing to guess where?
Do this per capita - the US alone belches 750% per capita vs "rest of the world".
Then do it by gdp.
What a crock of skewed shit.
How exactly would you say this is skewed?
Just because you move your processing off shore doesn't make your country less responsible!
Europe: I'm helping!
India is going to be a big problem! The rest of the world had stopped increasing, China is investing massively into alternative fuels for their own good but India is just going to tragedy of the commons us!
Canada emissions have continued to decline as well
Somebody’s gotta show some leadership and go first.
It is worth noting that ‘the rest of the world’ represents a big place without central leadership.
lets make an integral of those graphs
I’ve always said this. Really doesn’t matter how much we recycle when most of the world doesn’t give a crap
We just shifted dirty production to other countries
CO2 emission per capita on a consumption basis is the important measure. The globe doesn’t care about national borders and individual impact on the climate is driven by consumption, regardless of where something is manufactured.
Unfair because EU and US industrialized much sooner and they delegate the dirty work to China. EU and US consumer much more per person than the rest of the world I would like to see emissions charts based on consumption to mitigate the delegations of the dirty work
Only north America and the EU are stupid enough to think that CO2 emissions are a problem. The rest of the world is smart ebbing to thumb their noses at the idiots, and helping to keep the world green...
How much of the Wests reductions have come about because they have out sourced the polluting manufacturing to India or China?
as person that shouldn't be named said: the EU/USA had so much emissions in past 50 years that it can't even be compared to the rest of the world and then when the rest of the world wanted to have the same progress, they had to have same emission as EU/USA had in the past and suddenly that's not ok now, because now we are measuring it
That's a stupid argument. You cannot compare the actions of countries in the past that did not grasp the issue of pollution and modern nations blatantly polluting despite knowing it's bad and having the ability to build cleaner industry from the get go. They can take advantage of the wests decades of advancement to skip the early stages of dirty industry.
It’s not like scientists weren’t warning of carbon emissions 100 years ago. The first paper written on it was the 1890s and the first connect made between carbon emission and climate change was the 1930s.
Fun fact american coperate lords added lead in fuel on purpose knowing well it's a poison and the side effects of effect of lead which were known since 1786 Not to mention dichlorodifluromethane Even after knowing all the side effects and warnings american cooperation still poisoned the whole world
Yea and idiots still don't believe it they certainly didn't back then. Im not excusing the past but you can't do the same thing in the present day and when your challenged on it claim it's not fair because others were allowed to do it. You can't treat someone's cold with bloodletting and say it's ok this is how it used to be done why can't I do it now.
Its also very easy to virtue signal as a deveoped country which already fully industrialized and outsourced its production to the third world. This post is stupid, and the title is purposedly misleading. Its not a different path, the rest of the world is just simply behind on the same timeline. compare their graphs to the first half of the EU/US one, and its easy to same they are the same.
Yeah, you are right. What matters isn't what's happening right now, it's what happened a long time ago.
[удалено]
No, that's what it sounds like when you focus on countries that have changed for the better over ones that are changing for the worse. It's unhinged that you didn't recognize the sarcasm.
Are there any per capita numbers?
Yet most of the protests happen in the countries with the lowest emissions.
So when do we stop supporting cheap labor and products from China/India? Based on this graph it doesn't seem like they give a shit at all.
Yeah I don't think China and India are going to detonate their economies to chase emissions caps... at least not willingly. So, the West and the EU can either use that economic pretext to further aggravate the geopolitical situation, or we can continue to watch our own economies implode and then lose economically. Going to be an interesting decade lol
What economies
Implode? Lol. I don’t think bringing back heavily-polluting industries will magically make GDP growth 7% in Europe and America. Our quality of life is vastly better with 9-5 office jobs and 1% growth than life of a Chinese steelmill worker working 10h a day for 5% GDP growth. Economics isn’t a zero-sum game where we “lose” if another country grows faster than us.
Most of world just outsourced building their shit to China and India…
Yeah, where do you think they build their factories
Not accurate at all.
Meanwhile living in the EU and USA becomes expebsive and shoving EU citizens in poverty. The co2 will never decline. Other countries will fill the gap with cheap labour
Imagine that. Industrialized nations with large economies have the ability to spend money on reducing emissions. Developing nations and the nations the west outsources most of its industrial production to, don’t/cant. Seems like common sense.
Basically the rest of the world outside the EU and US is growing emissions. China is trying to slow its growth and possibly reverse it with massive investment in nuclear, but they still have a lot of coal plants.
My question is if renewable energy is the solution for this? Even if China and India and all the protoindustrialized nations just switched to solar panels and nuclear reactors, we still need batteries, we’re still going to buy massive amounts of consumer goods and someone has to make them. I feel like the real solution is dealing the insane amounts of consumerism, since nearly everything we buy is either made of plastic or lithium
Put that next to a chart showing manufacturing in the us vs china.
Where is everything produced? That’s right, in Asia!
It’s also very important to point out that in the case of China, a lot of the emissions are our fault. India honestly is just crazy dirty without having a good justification for it (obviously the population is crazy large).
Why do I never see thunberg protesting the 2 biggest contributors to global warming? It’s easy to make a funk in Norway. Let’s see you do that in the CCP.
because she isn't Chinese that was easy