7 ms·

The hard part is international collaboration. Getting China and India on board has been a non-starter so far, and they're far and away the largest contributors.

vkou 7y ago
No, they aren't. India's per capita CO2 output is tiny. China's is middle of the road. Per capita is the only way we can talk about CO2, because otherwise we get true absurdities, like Denmark or Ireland being allowed to pollute as much as the US. (The world will not support 200 countries polluting ad much as the US.) There's also a simple solution to getting trade partners on board. It's called a carbon tariff.
- DataWorker 7y ago
  Per capita may not be the best metric. China’s population isn’t going to shrink any time soon. If the environment is the concern the total emissions seems like the appropriate figure.
  - yibg 7y ago
    Don’t see how that would make sense. Comparing the emissions of China vs that of Iceland just doesn’t make sense. We can talk about total global emissions, but then bring it down to the total per capita contribution per country. e.g. China has 20% of the worlds population so are “allowed” 20% of the worlds total emissions.
    - xamuel 7y ago
      Careful there. That would incentivize unscrupulous nations to breed vast populations and keep them barely alive in cages, just to be "allowed" more emissions.
      - yibg 7y ago
        That's quite the jump.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > India's per capita CO2 output is tiny. being tiny now implies incredible room for growth given growth rates of those countries, which is actually an arugment for more action not less. > Per capita is the only way we can talk about CO2 Wouldn't it also mean India and china won't have to do anything for decades till they get to same per capita as USA ?
  - yibg 7y ago
    It would mean China needs to stop emitting more per capita and the US (and other developed countries) needs to reduce its emissions per capita.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      > It would mean China needs to stop emitting more per capita No it doesn't following GP's chain of logic. It doesn't need to do anything till the point it hits US per capita.
      - wutbrodo 7y ago
        "doesn't need to do anything" is a qualifier that _you_ added, apparently based on a gross misunderstanding of the conversation. We're talking about defining an ideal target here, with deference paid to the fact that the status quo poses some inertia. If we're talking about an idealized frictionless vacuum, everybody would snap to the same emissions per capita, at the level required to forestall the negative effects of climate change. This would imply a substantial reduction of US emissions and perhaps an increase or small decrease in Indo-China emissions; increasing China to US levels doesn't make sense in any model, idealized or otherwise. Given that inertia means that the US reduction can't be immediate and drastic, it still suggests that mroe of the burden for emission reduction falls on the US than on India and China.
        dominotw 7y ago
        I admit don't really understand what target would china and india have per capita under this model. Why would any burden fall on china/india given they are already on the low end of per capita. Can you define what burden falls on them under your per capita model?
- Supermancho 7y ago
  When talking about global action, you need to involve the political organizations of populations where effective action can be practically enacted. Per capita isnt as useful a measure as you think when talking about large scale change.
yibg 7y ago
china and India are large contributors only because they have large populations. Even then the US is a larger total contributor than India.
- jeltz 7y ago
  India, yes, but China emits more per capita than some European countries (e.g. Sweden, Switzerland and France).
  - sampo 7y ago
    China surpassed the EU average already in 2012. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&dst=CO2pc https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&ds...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oefrha 7y ago
Rephrased: “You gotta stop, we gotta continue our wasteful lifestyle.”
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Not at all. Both signed up to the Paris -- and previous agreements, but unfortunately Paris is a pretty weak, almost voluntary agreement that gives particular leeway to developing nations. Up to and including Kyoto they differentiated between developed and developing world. That differentiation was lost at Paris so the developed world could evade their "historical responsibility" (a key phrase of the differentiation). The intent was, I think, that the developed world would assist via subsidy the developing world to shortcut past the mucky phase of fuel use. An intent that goes all the way back to the eighties, and has come and gone in terms of visibility. That would have cost actual money. Needless to say that didn't happen. Or come remotely close to happening.
0xcafecafe 7y ago
Measuring per capita carbon footprint makes more sense for climate science as the effects don't limit themselves to artificial borders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... Per capita carbon emissions of US are 8 times as of India and 2 times as of China. And which country is withdrawing from the Paris agreement?
- 75dvtwin 7y ago
  With regards to > Measuring per capita carbon being better... It is not clear to me why this makes sense. If person A drive 2 miles per day in an SUV, and another person B drives 100 miles per day in a sedan -- person B pollutes more. Why would driver A considered to pollute more ?
  - 24gttghh 7y ago
    What does that have to do with anything? You've completely ignored the concept of what "per capita" even means in this context. Person B could be in Country 1 with low per capita emissions, or Person B could be in Country 2 with high per capita emissions. It doesn't change the fact that on average, individual people in Country 2 emit more CO2 emissions than people from Country 1... Also, deciding to not do something positive because other people are still doing something negative somewhere else is a shitty argument.
    - 75dvtwin 7y ago
      @gttghh, your "... is a shitty argument ... " critique, is insulting. This is also against HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >" When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "
      - 24gttghh 7y ago
        I called their argument shitty, not them personally. I stand by my statement.
naasking 7y ago
> Getting China and India on board has been a non-starter so far China is ahead of schedule in reducing its emissions. Consider also that being the first to switch to renewables or other energy sources means we develop technology to replace existing infrastructure that we can then export. The first-mover advantage on this is obvious.
jogjayr 7y ago
I'm going to copy-paste a comment I wrote a year ago because I get tired of hearing this BS. As far as I can tell, "on board" is just code for "remain poor while we keep the status quo". India and China both have leadership that acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and is taking active measures. That would seem like table stakes but unfortunately we live in a world where that's not a given. India produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not including large hydro[1]. Including large hydro, it's 29%. In comparison, the US produces only 15% from renewable sources including hydro[2] which, of course, has lots of environmental costs before any energy generation begins. This is admittedly a meaningless factoid but still kind of cool - India has 5 of the 10 largest solar power stations in the world, more than any other nation.[5] The Delhi city government has made it mandatory for government and public institutions to install rooftop solar[6]. This is on top of a government program that provides subsidized loans for rooftop solar on factories.[7] There's plenty of other renewable energy, rainwater harvesting, and recycling programs at various levels of the Indian government - federal, state, and city. I'm not saying all of them will work (it's the government, after all) but it's solid effort, and hard cash being put in. Gasoline costs USD 4.55/gal in Mumbai today[8] - compared to around USD 3.50 in California, which already has the highest gas prices in the continental US. Due to the lower average disposable income in India, this means motorists prioritize fuel economy over comfort, and even safety. India's annual population growth rate is 1.10% - a shade above the global average of 1.09%[3]. It's also been steadily dropping for decades and that trend is expected to continue.[4] China's population growth rate is 0.41% - lower even than the US.[3] The only way India and China can keep from increasing their emissions is by stopping their economic progress. This would effectively keep their respective populations poor, undernourished, and lacking modern amenities such as healthcare, transportation, or entertainment. So what do you mean by "on board" exactly? What other shining exemplars of environmental rectitude can one point at to persuade India and China? What other nations have made, or committed to make, similar lifestyle sacrifices? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United.... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio.... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit.... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta.... 6. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-.. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-.... 7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t.. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t.... 8. https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816

vkou 7y ago

No, they aren't. India's per capita CO2 output is tiny. China's is middle of the road. Per capita is the only way we can talk about CO2, because otherwise we get true absurdities, like Denmark or Ireland being allowed to pollute as much as the US. (The world will not support 200 countries polluting ad much as the US.) There's also a simple solution to getting trade partners on board. It's called a carbon tariff.

DataWorker 7y ago
Per capita may not be the best metric. China’s population isn’t going to shrink any time soon. If the environment is the concern the total emissions seems like the appropriate figure.
- yibg 7y ago
  Don’t see how that would make sense. Comparing the emissions of China vs that of Iceland just doesn’t make sense. We can talk about total global emissions, but then bring it down to the total per capita contribution per country. e.g. China has 20% of the worlds population so are “allowed” 20% of the worlds total emissions.
  - xamuel 7y ago
    Careful there. That would incentivize unscrupulous nations to breed vast populations and keep them barely alive in cages, just to be "allowed" more emissions.
    - yibg 7y ago
      That's quite the jump.
dominotw 7y ago
> India's per capita CO2 output is tiny. being tiny now implies incredible room for growth given growth rates of those countries, which is actually an arugment for more action not less. > Per capita is the only way we can talk about CO2 Wouldn't it also mean India and china won't have to do anything for decades till they get to same per capita as USA ?
- yibg 7y ago
  It would mean China needs to stop emitting more per capita and the US (and other developed countries) needs to reduce its emissions per capita.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > It would mean China needs to stop emitting more per capita No it doesn't following GP's chain of logic. It doesn't need to do anything till the point it hits US per capita.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      "doesn't need to do anything" is a qualifier that _you_ added, apparently based on a gross misunderstanding of the conversation. We're talking about defining an ideal target here, with deference paid to the fact that the status quo poses some inertia. If we're talking about an idealized frictionless vacuum, everybody would snap to the same emissions per capita, at the level required to forestall the negative effects of climate change. This would imply a substantial reduction of US emissions and perhaps an increase or small decrease in Indo-China emissions; increasing China to US levels doesn't make sense in any model, idealized or otherwise. Given that inertia means that the US reduction can't be immediate and drastic, it still suggests that mroe of the burden for emission reduction falls on the US than on India and China.
      - dominotw 7y ago
        I admit don't really understand what target would china and india have per capita under this model. Why would any burden fall on china/india given they are already on the low end of per capita. Can you define what burden falls on them under your per capita model?
Supermancho 7y ago
When talking about global action, you need to involve the political organizations of populations where effective action can be practically enacted. Per capita isnt as useful a measure as you think when talking about large scale change.

yibg 7y ago

china and India are large contributors only because they have large populations. Even then the US is a larger total contributor than India.

jeltz 7y ago
India, yes, but China emits more per capita than some European countries (e.g. Sweden, Switzerland and France).
- sampo 7y ago
  China surpassed the EU average already in 2012. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&dst=CO2pc https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&ds...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

oefrha 7y ago

Rephrased: “You gotta stop, we gotta continue our wasteful lifestyle.”

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Not at all. Both signed up to the Paris -- and previous agreements, but unfortunately Paris is a pretty weak, almost voluntary agreement that gives particular leeway to developing nations. Up to and including Kyoto they differentiated between developed and developing world. That differentiation was lost at Paris so the developed world could evade their "historical responsibility" (a key phrase of the differentiation). The intent was, I think, that the developed world would assist via subsidy the developing world to shortcut past the mucky phase of fuel use. An intent that goes all the way back to the eighties, and has come and gone in terms of visibility. That would have cost actual money. Needless to say that didn't happen. Or come remotely close to happening.

0xcafecafe 7y ago

Measuring per capita carbon footprint makes more sense for climate science as the effects don't limit themselves to artificial borders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... Per capita carbon emissions of US are 8 times as of India and 2 times as of China. And which country is withdrawing from the Paris agreement?

75dvtwin 7y ago
With regards to > Measuring per capita carbon being better... It is not clear to me why this makes sense. If person A drive 2 miles per day in an SUV, and another person B drives 100 miles per day in a sedan -- person B pollutes more. Why would driver A considered to pollute more ?
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  What does that have to do with anything? You've completely ignored the concept of what "per capita" even means in this context. Person B could be in Country 1 with low per capita emissions, or Person B could be in Country 2 with high per capita emissions. It doesn't change the fact that on average, individual people in Country 2 emit more CO2 emissions than people from Country 1... Also, deciding to not do something positive because other people are still doing something negative somewhere else is a shitty argument.
  - 75dvtwin 7y ago
    @gttghh, your "... is a shitty argument ... " critique, is insulting. This is also against HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >" When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "
    - 24gttghh 7y ago
      I called their argument shitty, not them personally. I stand by my statement.

naasking 7y ago

> Getting China and India on board has been a non-starter so far China is ahead of schedule in reducing its emissions. Consider also that being the first to switch to renewables or other energy sources means we develop technology to replace existing infrastructure that we can then export. The first-mover advantage on this is obvious.

jogjayr 7y ago

I'm going to copy-paste a comment I wrote a year ago because I get tired of hearing this BS. As far as I can tell, "on board" is just code for "remain poor while we keep the status quo". India and China both have leadership that acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and is taking active measures. That would seem like table stakes but unfortunately we live in a world where that's not a given. India produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not including large hydro[1]. Including large hydro, it's 29%. In comparison, the US produces only 15% from renewable sources including hydro[2] which, of course, has lots of environmental costs before any energy generation begins. This is admittedly a meaningless factoid but still kind of cool - India has 5 of the 10 largest solar power stations in the world, more than any other nation.[5] The Delhi city government has made it mandatory for government and public institutions to install rooftop solar[6]. This is on top of a government program that provides subsidized loans for rooftop solar on factories.[7] There's plenty of other renewable energy, rainwater harvesting, and recycling programs at various levels of the Indian government - federal, state, and city. I'm not saying all of them will work (it's the government, after all) but it's solid effort, and hard cash being put in. Gasoline costs USD 4.55/gal in Mumbai today[8] - compared to around USD 3.50 in California, which already has the highest gas prices in the continental US. Due to the lower average disposable income in India, this means motorists prioritize fuel economy over comfort, and even safety. India's annual population growth rate is 1.10% - a shade above the global average of 1.09%[3]. It's also been steadily dropping for decades and that trend is expected to continue.[4] China's population growth rate is 0.41% - lower even than the US.[3] The only way India and China can keep from increasing their emissions is by stopping their economic progress. This would effectively keep their respective populations poor, undernourished, and lacking modern amenities such as healthcare, transportation, or entertainment. So what do you mean by "on board" exactly? What other shining exemplars of environmental rectitude can one point at to persuade India and China? What other nations have made, or committed to make, similar lifestyle sacrifices? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United.... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio.... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit.... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta.... 6. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-.. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-.... 7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t.. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t.... 8. https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816