Robert C

That is why I included the qualifier "as practiced"

Machka 

Carbon dioxide emissions per country ... all comparable sizes (land areas)


China Population: 1,366,350,000 * 7.2 (and steadily increasing) = 9,837,720,000

US Population: 318,605,000 * 17.2 = 5,480,006,000

Canada Population: 35,427,524 * 15.3 - 542,041,117.2 (10% of USA, 5% of China)

Australia Population: 23,572,700 * 18.3 = 431,380,410 (8% of USA, 4% of China)


Canada and Australia contribute just a fraction of the amount China and USA contribute.


If carbon dioxide emissions are a problem, looking at those figures, the countries that contribute the most are the ones who should be taking action and leading the way.

Roody

What is there about "per capita" that you cannot (or will not) understand? Per capita means per person. It's people who make the pollution, so we must concentrate on the people who make it, not the countries.

As an American, I pump out five times as much carbon as a Chinese person. As an Australian, you pump out even more than I do. A Nigerian pumps out practically none.

It doesn't make any sense to get Nigerians (or even Chinese) individuals to pollute less. They are not the problem--you and I are the problem. When it comes time to do something about pollution, you need to concentrate on the people who are causing the problem--not on the innocent bystanders in less developed countries. We're trying to cram nine billion people into this planet--we must work together, face the problem, and make sensible plans to solve the problem. Not quibble about it until it's too late.

B. Carfree

Yes and no. Per capita emissions are certainly relevant, but one cannot ignore the impact of simply having more people. If a nation chooses to control its population, should it not be allowed to emit more per person than one whose people breed without restraint?

Then there's the issue of just which emissions should count. Much of China's emissions are the result of producing consumer goods for the people of Europe, Australia and North America. Are those Chinese emissions or are they European, Australian and North American emissions?

I'm not arguing that we don't need to reduce our emissions, and quickly. However, there's lots more to this than the per capita data.

Machka 

Ummm ... no.

If you add up all those metric tons, for 2009, you get 3152. Multiply that by the world population of 7.185 billion (approx.) = 22,647,120,000,000.00

And Australia's contribution is absolutely miniscule ... 0.002%.

Compare with USA's contribution of 0.02% and China's contribution of 0.04%.

Sure, Australia could make an effort etc. etc. ... but the result would be so small, hardly anyone would notice.

What you're saying here is the same stuff the greens kept feeding us when they were in power ... that it was all up to Australia, that Australia played a huge role in all this, blah, blah, blah. Australia got sick of hearing all that ... and the greens are gone. In reality, Australia has such a teensy tiny role that even if we doubled our CO2 emissions it probably wouldn't be noticed.

I'm not saying that Australians shouldn't make a bit of effort to pollute less, I'm just saying that we're weary of hearing that it is all our fault when it is not.

Machka 

Good points.

And one of the issues is this ... while Australia and the US and several other countries might be making something of an effort to reduce or at least maintain the same level (and that chart doesn't show recent years for many countries), China is on a steady increase. Extrapolating their average rate of increase over the past decade out over the next 10 years ... and they'll be sitting at 16.2. Right close to where places like the US and Australia are ... with the world's largest population.

I don't worry too much about these things, but if I did, that would be a much greater worry than whether or not Australia's emissions drop a bit.

Roody

China is doing a lot to reduce pollution--more than many developed countries. Remember, on a per person basis, China doesn't pollute very much, so it's harder for individuals to reduce pollution. In the US and Australia (to name two countries where people pollute a great deal) it is much easier for people to find ways to drastically reduce their own pollution.

China is limiting cars, emphasizing public transit, working to reduce traffic congestion in big cities, putting in by far the most extensive rapid rail system in the world, scrapping plans for coal plants, and much else. However, like Americans and Australians, they aren't crazy about the idea of reducing prosperity as the best way to reduce pollution.

This is one reason that wealthy countries should be doing much more to invent better technology for reducing carbon pollution. One hope is that we will not only reduce our own pollution, but find ways for developing countries to become more prosperous without needing to pollute more.

fietsbob

the Carbon producing industries have the Money.. the Status Quo is all about them making more money ..

Exporting Coal .. So, who gets the Carbon Demerits, the Mines, Ports, and Shippers or the Buyer-Powerplants that burn it?

ironwood

Wasn't there a long thread last summer about CO2 and climate change last year? The same posters are making the same arguments as they made last year and no one has changed their positions.

Since the subject is CO2 sources, is anyone aware of the energy required to run the internet? I saw one estimate that the internet uses two times the energy used by civil aviation. (sorry I don't have source of this) That energy is included in the electrical portion of energy .

Smallwheels

I just want to breathe clean air. If every vehicle used 100% alcohol the air pollution from cars would be 2% and that is just because the US government requires gasoline to be added to it so that people can't drink it. Alcohol is a renewable resource. The CO2 goes into the plants and then into the fuel. After it is burned the plants can breathe it in and make it into more fuel. There would be no more need for catalytic converters.

Roody

A couple problems with this. Fitst, the growing of crops for biofuels is carbon intensive and also uses lots of water. Second, using cropland to raise car fuel will cause food shortages.

Walter S

Living car free, I for one will resent high food prices because cars need to guzzle bio fuels.

Smallwheels

Nope. Those are myths spread by the American Petroleum Institute, the people who want you to use oil for fuel.

Read these pages:

Myth: It takes just as much energy to make ethanol as you get out of it. | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas

Myth: If we use all our corn to produce fuel, we won't have enough food. | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas

As for water use, the fracking industry is using a gigantic amount of water that is polluted and full of chemicals to open the millions of wells they are creating.

Roody

I have a lot of concerns about fracking, but that's mostly for natural gas, not gasoline. At this point agriculture uses a lot more water than fracking.

National Geographic did a recent piece about food and they mentioned that using cropland for biofuel is already causing food prices to rise in many parts of the world, including the US. I don't think they based that on propaganda from the Petroleum Institute!

bragi

Machka, please. I haven't been to Australia, but I have been to Canada, many, many times, and in most significant ways it's basically the same as the US but on a smaller scale. Vancouver is maybe prettier than Seattle, but it's just as sprawled out, just as car-centric, and just as beset with the problems of urbanization. Traffic there on a Friday afternoon is just as messed up as in most US cities. Victoria, too, on a smaller scale. Toronto, like Vancouver, (only more so) is surrounded by huge, huge suburbs, full of icky tract housing, just like most US cities. There is no difference in kind, only scale. Canada has far fewer people, so there are fewer urban centers and the hinterlands are spared. (Actually, Canada still has hinterlands, while the US doesn't, really, outside of Alaska.) On a per-capita basis, I'd be very surprised if there were any difference at all between the environmental impact produced by a Canadian and that of a person from the US.