221–230 of 666 posts
I'm starting to think that we're the baddies.
Ecologically speaking, the US is an absolute monster of a nightmare. The American carbon footprint is incredible.
1. China 26.16%
2 United States 11.53%
3. India 7.69%
4. Russia 3.75%
5. Brazil 3.16%
6. Indonesia 3.15%
7. Japan 2.15%
8. Iran 2.06%
9. Saudi Arabia 1.60%
10. Canada 1.54%
The top 10 countries account for about ~60% of global CO₂ emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, aren't coral reefs also very sensitive to climate change? How much of that loss is because of regional activities and how much is due to global environmental changes?
So, something has been bugging me. Coral is one of the oldest animals. They've been around for over half a billion years. They survived the Great Dying, which killed 80-95% of marine species. And now the ocean gets 0.9 C warmer and it's game over for coral?
I'm starting to think that we're the baddies.
Ahem: "China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion." But trees are nice. Source: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.918
I'm starting to think that we're the baddies.
Ahem: "China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion." But trees are nice. Source: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.918
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China has 4 times the population. In any rational divvying up of the world's total emissions allowance by country China's share would be 4 times that of the US, but they are only emitting twice what the US is emitting. Both are over their fair share, but the US is over by a larger factor so is farther behind on getting to where they need to be. (This is not taking into account trade. Divvying up the world emissions b…
Assigning blame and guilt is pointless. Just look at how well it has worked to motivate the US to change. That is to say, not at all. The only thing moving the needle is renewables and nuclear generating power more cheaply than fossil fuels, so it becomes stupid to not switch to them even if you have no regard for the long term health of the environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A huge portion of China's emissions come from making things for people that aren't in China. The argument is that if a Chinese factory makes only widgets used in the US, those emissions from the Chinese factory are probably more accurately counted as US emissions. Its like saying that you are 0 emissions because you have an electric car with no tailpipe while ignoring where the electricity is coming from.
The counter argument is that they'd have mass unemployment and would be in poverty without it. Virtually all rapid modern industrialization is reliant on exporting to foreign markets so characteizing it as American emissions is largely a misomer as it is really global emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is far higher per capita and doing nothing about it.
This is one of the places where per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. We have one planet. The yearly total and cumulative matters the most. China is by far the leading emitter. Over double of the US as of 2023 (latest available data I can find). China's emissions also aren't falling, they are skyrocketing. The US emissions ARE falling. The US dominates in cumulative, which is essentially the measure o…
You are incorrect that China isn’t doing anything to lower its impact. It’s emissions would be much much much worse for the standard of living increases it achieved without investments in clean energy and EVs, tech that it is exporting abroad to the benefit of the world and to the dismay of America’s petro dollar dependence.
With such thinking, I now get why the rest of the world is beginning to hate America so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cities tend to expand up. Almost all buildings in Mumbai that are under 5 stories are targeted for "redevelopment" i.e. a developer buying it out and building something taller in its place.
That is too costly for cities that have cheap and abandoned agricultural land waiting to be deforested and build upon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, aren't coral reefs also very sensitive to climate change? How much of that loss is because of regional activities and how much is due to global environmental changes?
Considering that China is responsible for ~25% of cumulative CO2 emissions to date, there's not much difference between the regional and global inputs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, aren't coral reefs also very sensitive to climate change? How much of that loss is because of regional activities and how much is due to global environmental changes?
So, something has been bugging me. Coral is one of the oldest animals. They've been around for over half a billion years. They survived the Great Dying, which killed 80-95% of marine species. And now the ocean gets 0.9 C warmer and it's game over for coral?