IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 23

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130486 20-Nov-2018 15:55

tdgeek:

Individuals emmissions differ but not markedly. We are all consuming goods and food that cause emmissions

Absolutely untrue.

The average Joe living in the USA had a carbon footfrint of 16.4 in 2013 (no more recent figures to hand), average Kiwi 7.6, average Nepalese 0.2. Worst case is Qatar at 40.5, lots of places at 0.1 or less, so there's an 80:1 difference between worst and best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

It's less about the food that you eat (although Westerners tend to eat more meat and dairy which generate CO2 in their production) and more about the goods and services you consume. People in "developed" countries have dishwashers, washing machines, air-conditioners, vacumm cleaners, etc. all of which use electricity, which has to be generated somehow, and only a proportion of that is from renewable sources. The rest is coal or gas fired. Or nuclear, I guess. Throw in cars and aircraft, widely used in wealthy countries and relatively rare in poor countries, and you get direct CO2 emissions as well. On top of that, they buy (and throw out) stuff which creates CO2 in its manufacture and distribution (via electricity use, fuel for transport, etc).

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130497 20-Nov-2018 16:32

frankv:

tdgeek:

Individuals emmissions differ but not markedly. We are all consuming goods and food that cause emmissions

Absolutely untrue.

The average Joe living in the USA had a carbon footfrint of 16.4 in 2013 (no more recent figures to hand), average Kiwi 7.6, average Nepalese 0.2. Worst case is Qatar at 40.5, lots of places at 0.1 or less, so there's an 80:1 difference between worst and best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

It's less about the food that you eat (although Westerners tend to eat more meat and dairy which generate CO2 in their production) and more about the goods and services you consume. People in "developed" countries have dishwashers, washing machines, air-conditioners, vacumm cleaners, etc. all of which use electricity, which has to be generated somehow, and only a proportion of that is from renewable sources. The rest is coal or gas fired. Or nuclear, I guess. Throw in cars and aircraft, widely used in wealthy countries and relatively rare in poor countries, and you get direct CO2 emissions as well. On top of that, they buy (and throw out) stuff which creates CO2 in its manufacture and distribution (via electricity use, fuel for transport, etc).

You cant include Nepalese. Nor Inuits and so on. US 16, NZ 8 Qatar 40.

If you look here https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W_N_by2B2u4

Thats a good guide. China and India are at the low end due to the many poor there, you could exclude the poor and still have a large population country that fits into the general range of about 8 to 12, with the odd first world country quite low, i.e. France. And a few higher, US, AUS

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130573 20-Nov-2018 19:24

I'm curious... what's your rationale for excluding Nepalese? I can kindof accept Inuits, since they're not a country per se. But Nepal? Not that it's important because there's plenty of other countries in the same ballpark as Nepal in terms of carbon footprint/person. I was deliberately conservative in my 80:1 statement; you have exclude every country 0.5 and below before that's theatened.

And the original statement was that "Individuals emmissions [sic] differ but not markedly". Not countries, so individual people. I can't imagine anyone but a politician claiming with a straight face that NZ's figure of 7.6 doesn't differ markedly from the USA's or Qatar's.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130639 20-Nov-2018 21:25

frankv:

I'm curious... what's your rationale for excluding Nepalese? I can kindof accept Inuits, since they're not a country per se. But Nepal? Not that it's important because there's plenty of other countries in the same ballpark as Nepal in terms of carbon footprint/person. I was deliberately conservative in my 80:1 statement; you have exclude every country 0.5 and below before that's theatened.

And the original statement was that "Individuals emmissions [sic] differ but not markedly". Not countries, so individual people. I can't imagine anyone but a politician claiming with a straight face that NZ's figure of 7.6 doesn't differ markedly from the USA's or Qatar's.

Fair points.

I. Nepal. I took Nepal as a low developed country. While the population is quite high the economy is pretty low, so I saw that, and any other non mainstream country, as giving an artificially low or high number.

2. Qatar is smaller then NZ, but the economy is so different. The general range on the link was about 8-12, some lower some higher. The US? Id expect the US to be full off emissions per capita. Excess, waste, etc

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130738 21-Nov-2018 06:54

tdgeek:

I. Nepal. I took Nepal as a low developed country. While the population is quite high the economy is pretty low, so I saw that, and any other non mainstream country, as giving an artificially low or high number.

2. Qatar is smaller then NZ, but the economy is so different. The general range on the link was about 8-12, some lower some higher. The US? Id expect the US to be full off emissions per capita. Excess, waste, etc

But that's precisely the point. Poor people don't consume as much as rich people. It's not artificial... it's a valid data point. Rich people in wealthy countries consume (and waste) more, and therefore generate more CO2 per capita. QED.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130739 21-Nov-2018 07:02

frankv:

tdgeek:

I. Nepal. I took Nepal as a low developed country. While the population is quite high the economy is pretty low, so I saw that, and any other non mainstream country, as giving an artificially low or high number.

2. Qatar is smaller then NZ, but the economy is so different. The general range on the link was about 8-12, some lower some higher. The US? Id expect the US to be full off emissions per capita. Excess, waste, etc

But that's precisely the point. Poor people don't consume as much as rich people. It's not artificial... it's a valid data point. Rich people in wealthy countries consume (and waste) more, and therefore generate more CO2 per capita. QED.

I agree. So you quoting Nepal isn't relevant. It doesn't prove that there are widely differing emissions levels between people, as the people we are concerned with are those that do emit a lot. Using the countries that are emitters of note, the range between these people is quite narrow

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2130806 21-Nov-2018 08:56

tdgeek:

I agree. So you quoting Nepal isn't relevant. It doesn't prove that there are widely differing emissions levels between people, as the people we are concerned with are those that do emit a lot. Using the countries that are emitters of note, the range between these people is quite narrow

The concern with less-developed countries is that are populous and they aspire to be more developed - have all the carbon emitting bells and whistles that developed countries have. While that's perfectly logical and understandable, there isn't room in the global carbon budget for the level of development and population we have now.

Mike

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130819 21-Nov-2018 09:15

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

I agree. So you quoting Nepal isn't relevant. It doesn't prove that there are widely differing emissions levels between people, as the people we are concerned with are those that do emit a lot. Using the countries that are emitters of note, the range between these people is quite narrow

The concern with less-developed countries is that are populous and they aspire to be more developed - have all the carbon emitting bells and whistles that developed countries have. While that's perfectly logical and understandable, there isn't room in the global carbon budget for the level of development and population we have now.

That's true. My point was you can't include those countries when looking at emission figures. They are not the cause or saviour, and we wont be researching them to see how they achieved such low emissions.

As to your point, I agree, but given that no country is that interested in climate change, and what any are doing is a mere drop in a bucket token effort (except for Norway and their EV progress) the less developed countries are probably a few levels up from what needs to be attacked. If there was a real global effort going on, the less developed countries would need to fit in with that as well. But there isn't, so while any emission growth these do have, it wont be a lot in the greater scheme of things.

Dingbatt

6760 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130824 21-Nov-2018 09:25

tdgeek: ...........My point was you can't include those countries when looking at emission figures. They are not the cause or saviour, .........

A bit like NZ really.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2130850 21-Nov-2018 10:01

tdgeek:

If there was a real global effort going on, the less developed countries would need to fit in with that as well. But there isn't, so while any emission growth these do have, it wont be a lot in the greater scheme of things.

The emissions growth from the expanding middle class in Asia is massive. Food, transport, HVAC

Mike

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130851 21-Nov-2018 10:03

Dingbatt:
tdgeek: ...........My point was you can't include those countries when looking at emission figures. They are not the cause or saviour, .........

A bit like NZ really.

Incorrect. A Kiwi uses a similar level of emissions as most other developed countries, so those countries including NZ are similar offenders, CO2 per capita

The countries you can exclude are less developed and low emitters so are not the cause as they are not causing it, and not the saviour as there is nothing to save

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130854 21-Nov-2018 10:09

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

If there was a real global effort going on, the less developed countries would need to fit in with that as well. But there isn't, so while any emission growth these do have, it wont be a lot in the greater scheme of things.

The emissions growth from the expanding middle class in Asia is massive. Food, transport, HVAC

Yes, its a fair assumption that third world Chinese and Indian can escape to the first world relatively quickly. If I played the numbers I could say thats ok as those two countries have very low emissions per capita, but that's hiding the truth. If there was a global effort yes, it would need to include those also. But there isnt, so its all moot

Dingbatt

6760 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130858 21-Nov-2018 10:15

tdgeek:
Dingbatt:
tdgeek: ...........My point was you can't include those countries when looking at emission figures. They are not the cause or saviour, .........

A bit like NZ really.

Incorrect. A Kiwi uses a similar level of emissions as most other developed countries, so those countries including NZ are similar offenders, CO2 per capita

The countries you can exclude are less developed and low emitters so are not the cause as they are not causing it, and not the saviour as there is nothing to save

per capita
As far as cause or saviour is concerned, NZ is insignificant and irrelevant. Hard to accept I know, but beyond virtue signalling, nothing we do will make a difference. Doesn't mean we shouldn't play the game, just means it won't have any effect globally.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130872 21-Nov-2018 10:27

Dingbatt:
tdgeek:

Dingbatt:
tdgeek: ...........My point was you can't include those countries when looking at emission figures. They are not the cause or saviour, .........

A bit like NZ really.

Incorrect. A Kiwi uses a similar level of emissions as most other developed countries, so those countries including NZ are similar offenders, CO2 per capita

The countries you can exclude are less developed and low emitters so are not the cause as they are not causing it, and not the saviour as there is nothing to save

per capita
As far as cause or saviour is concerned, NZ is insignificant and irrelevant. Hard to accept I know, but beyond virtue signalling, nothing we do will make a difference. Doesn't mean we shouldn't play the game, just means it won't have any effect globally.

Its not hard to accept as its irrelevant. Its just an excuse. That means that 2/3 of Los Angeles should not bother either as it wont have any effect globally. 1/4 of Mexico City can do the same. Global climate change is caused by people. Not flags. Virtue Signalling? No, just a fact.

Its ok to seek an excuse to excuse ourselves from the time, effort and cost of fighting a global problem, that's human nature.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2130933 21-Nov-2018 11:20

tdgeek:

I agree. So you quoting Nepal isn't relevant. It doesn't prove that there are widely differing emissions levels between people, as the people we are concerned with are those that do emit a lot. Using the countries that are emitters of note, the range between these people is quite narrow

Ahhh, gotcha. On rereading the thread, I see that I'd taken your comment out of context and thought it related to all 7 billion people, not just the heavy emitters.

Nevertheless, one American or Australian has the impact of 2 Chineseor 4 Mexicans or 10 Indians, all in the top 20 countries from your link. I still think that a 10:1 range says that there's widely differing emissions levels between people.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 23