
Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China - KyleOS
https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-co2
======
deogeo
I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last
~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead
statistics are used that completely disregard population size, especially
since it's so heavily advocated:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-
climate-change-have-fewer-children)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-
having...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-
children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis)

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-
we...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we-should-
have-fewer-children-save-the-planet-climate-change)

[https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-
we...](https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we-be-having-
fewer-children-for-the-sake-of-the-planet)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-
ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-
children.html)

[https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-
have-f...](https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-fewer-
babies-to-save-the-environment.html)

~~~
kbutler
1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects

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

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

~~~
arrrg
If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures
that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable.

One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that
climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got
what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.

~~~
deogeo
Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all
humans being killed?

~~~
arrrg
Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to
make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes
only.

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

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

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

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

------
3zra
What I don't fully understand about calculating carbon footprints is if I buy
an iPhone made in China, does that add to the carbon footprint per capita of
my country or to China's carbon footprint per capita? If the second were to be
true, we would be shaming 'developing' countries for fuelling our own
consumption levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
dugluak
Solution is simple. Developed nations should pay more price and do more than
other nations. That will take care of "hypocrisy" allegations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
marak830
How about we blame each, and every other country, based upon all factors, up
to and including the end result.

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

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

~~~
ratboy666
First, how many trees per capita are there:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree-
density/?...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree-
density/?noredirect=on)

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

Next, how much carbon does each tree sink:

[https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h...](https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm)

48 pounds of carbon per tree, per year.

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

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

[http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php](http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php)

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

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

FredW

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

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

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

------
guillaumedsde
Its interesting this comes up now, I had to write an essay related to this
recently [1] (check out the references section I found some really interesting
literature on the topic). The Chinese policy discourse on Climate change does
not "stop" at articulating Responsibility in terms of per capita emissions,
but also historic emissions, here is the relevant extract from it:

"The life spans of different gases in the atmosphere vary, furthermore they
contribute differently to Radiative Forcing which causes Global Warming. Since
Greenhouse gases (GHG) have long atmospheric lifespans, Chinese GHG emissions
are larger than their contribution to Radiative Forcing since it started
emitting them later than other countries. The Chinese scientific community
supporting the policy thus highlights that since cumulative Chinese CO2
emissions are lower than "developed countries’", the Chinese contribution to
Global Warming is also considerably less, 10% of total radiative forcing [2]."

[1] [https://guillaume.desusanne.com/how-does-chinas-policy-
disco...](https://guillaume.desusanne.com/how-does-chinas-policy-discourse-
articulate-the-relationship-between-great-power-status-and-chinas-
responsibility-to-help-address-climate-change/)

[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17165](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17165)

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

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

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

~~~
purple-again
Your facts don't match your premise. It helps us to understand, at an
individual level, which individuals are more responsible than other
individuals. Individuals don't rule the Earth; nations do. Looking at the data
by nation rather than per capita in fact is the data that tells us which
nations are most responsible for climate change. Humanity is destroying earth,
not individual nations. If the western world cuts its emissions to 0 and the
eastern world laughs and doubles its emissions in response we all still burn.
The total emissions of humanity are all that matter in the context of climate
change.

~~~
KyleOS
How do you explain the fact that Western European economies perform so well on
a per-capita basis of emissions versus the US and Canada then? I do agree with
some of your points on the Western world vs the East & that it will require
homogenous action. But we in the West are in a position to lead the way, both
in terms of actual implementation and or R&D for more cost-effective use of
renewable energy in the future. The rest of the world will follow.

------
RenRav
CO2 isn't the only problem!
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
rayiner
Would you rather have us live like farmers in Bangladesh?

