Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23
2679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1294

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130486 20-Nov-2018 15:55
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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).

 

 


15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130497 20-Nov-2018 16:32
Send private message quote this post

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


 
 
 
 


2679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1294

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130573 20-Nov-2018 19:24
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130639 20-Nov-2018 21:25
Send private message quote this post

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


2679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1294

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130738 21-Nov-2018 06:54
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

 

 


15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130739 21-Nov-2018 07:02
Send private message quote this post

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


5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2198


  Reply # 2130806 21-Nov-2018 08:56
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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

15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130819 21-Nov-2018 09:15
Send private message quote this post

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.


3722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 770

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130824 21-Nov-2018 09:25
Send private message quote this post

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.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2198


  Reply # 2130850 21-Nov-2018 10:01
Send private message quote this post

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

15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130851 21-Nov-2018 10:03
Send private message quote this post

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


15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130854 21-Nov-2018 10:09
Send private message quote this post

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


3722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 770

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130858 21-Nov-2018 10:15
Send private message quote this post

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.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

15358 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2984
Inactive user


  Reply # 2130872 21-Nov-2018 10:27
Send private message quote this post

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.


2679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1294

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2130933 21-Nov-2018 11:20
Send private message quote this post

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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Donate via Givealittle


Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Amazon introduces new Kindle with adjustable front light
Posted 21-Mar-2019 20:14


A call from the companies providing internet access for the great majority of New Zealanders, to the companies with the greatest influence over social media content
Posted 19-Mar-2019 15:21


Two e-scooter companies selected for Wellington trial
Posted 15-Mar-2019 17:33


GeForce GTX 1660 available now
Posted 15-Mar-2019 08:47


Artificial Intelligence to double the rate of innovation in New Zealand by 2021
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:47


LG demonstrates smart home concepts at LG InnoFest
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:45


New Zealanders buying more expensive smartphones
Posted 11-Mar-2019 09:52


2degrees Offers Amazon Prime Video to Broadband Customers
Posted 8-Mar-2019 14:10


D-Link ANZ launches D-Fend AC2600 Wi-Fi Router Protected by McAfee
Posted 7-Mar-2019 11:09


Slingshot commissions celebrities to design new modems
Posted 5-Mar-2019 08:58


Symantec Annual Threat Report reveals more ambitious, destructive and stealthy attacks
Posted 28-Feb-2019 10:14


FUJIFILM launches high performing X-T30
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:40


Netflix is killing content piracy says research
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:33


Trend Micro finds shifting threats require kiwis to rethink security priorities
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:27


Mainfreight uses Spark IoT Asset Tracking service
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:25



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.