Climate Change Solutions

[Jon]

My posting may not have been clear, my bad. I fully agree with you that those with a higher standard of living should not be allowed to pollute more. What I was trying to get at, is that simply tossing out a number, may not fully explain who is a "worse" polluter. @Uncle Gizmo provides a very useful perspective, that numbers by themsleves don't tell the whole story, as the US is one of the nations "exporting" its carbon footprint to China. So you can't ding China for that.

I agree Steve. It all depends on how granular you want to go. You can look at the portfolio of type of businesses each country has and the relative size of each sector. A country that focuses on say oil production (Qatar) will have a high rate of CO2 emissions per capita compared to say Greenland that is heavily reliant on fishing. Each is just exploiting their natural resources.

Note that Qatar is the worst per capita polluter and Greenland the least.

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

 

[Steve R.]

I'm not sure that's correct, something Jordan Peterson said about increase in living standards makes people more able and capable and interested in protecting the environment.

I think that you are conflating two issues: desire and carbon "consumption". Those with a higher standard of living tend to "consume" more carbon. They will also tend to be more concerned (desire) about the environment. As an ultra extreme brazen example of this look at the Glasgow Climate Conference were the rich (high standard of living) attendees who have a claimed high desire to protect the environment "consumed" a massive amount of carbon.

Bezos, Gates Most Brazen Carbon-spewing Hypocrites at Glasgow Climate Conference

Another “climate summit,” another opportunity for the super-rich elites to put their hypocrisy on full display. This time it’s the UN’s COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, and the leading in-your-face hypocrites are Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, with Prince Charles thrown in for good measure.Bezos...

thenewamerican.com

 

[Steve R.]

I understand that the bottom economic level have little choice in their source of fuel and are more likely to use heavily polluting fuels.

Thanks for that additional thought. Those at the bottom of economic strata (living at a subsistence level) are likely to use more polluting fuels and conduct other environmentally damaging actions. However, their ability to negatively affect the environment may be significantly less than those who are further up the economic latter. Those further-up the economic latter probably use more resources even if those resources are more environmentally "friendly", such as flying a private jet that has "low" emissions thousands of miles to essentially transport one person to a meeting and back again.

 

[Steve R.]

I don't know. But I suspect that there are billions of people at the bottom, enough people as a group to make a significant impact on global warming, possibly a bigger impact than any other group.it would be nice to see some figures.

You have a point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to take a quick dive into some data (Electricity and Solid Waste Generation), which would not survive any academic scrutiny. So one can't really make any valid conclusion based on the data. But, at a very gross level, they do reflect a nations overall standard of living. Those with a higher standard of living tend to consume more.

National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling | US EPA

These pages show the generation, recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery, and landfilling of the materials and products studied from 1960 through 2014. These pages also show recycling and composting trends from 1960 to 2014.

www.epa.gov

"The total generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2018 was 292.4 million tons (U.S. short tons, unless specified) or 4.9 pounds per person per day."

4.9 pounds translates to 2.2 Kilograms.

http://www.world-psi.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/en_af_waste_report_lrgm_layout_1.pdf

"The average per capita waste generation in 2012 was only between 0.78 kg and 0.8 kg
of solid waste per capita/day compared to the global average of 1.39 kg/capita/day" (emphasis added)

So, in the US, per capita solid waste is generated at approximately 2.75X what is generated in Africa.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

US: ............. 12,994 kWh
Bangladesh: 320 kWh
Nigeria: ...... 145 KWh

So, in the US, people consume approximately 40X in electricity compared to Bangladesh.

Again, none of this would survive any academic scrutiny, but may partially address your question of: "it would be nice to see some figures."

 

[Isaac]

Indeed they already know it

?

 

[Isaac]

In my opinion, it is best to consider environmental policies in light of the consequences in other spheres: balances of power, politics, peace, economics, etc. Everyone likes to say keep the politics out of it, until a guy with a turban shuts the pipeline down.

Everything must be considered in balance, in the end.

 

[conception_native_0123]

What affect will banning coal have on the 3 world?

i dont know, but this is sure good marketing by the news agency assholes:

 

[oleronesoftwares]

What affect will banning coal have on the 3 world?

More poverty, but the world has to be a cleaner place to live in.

 

[conception_native_0123]

the world has to be a cleaner place to live in.

good luck with implementing that.