Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

birnabear t1_jdlnohq wrote

Reply to comment by Vermaxx in Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters by je97

Because its the only way to compare two nations of vastly differing populations.

Otherwise the world as a whole has 100% ghg. Without breaking down to per capita its a useless comparison

0

Vermaxx t1_jdlp6wq wrote

But sure let's say I did this math right. China has a quotient of 0.01917 per pop, the entire rest of my example is 0.01051 per pop. And that's everyone together, not singling out Britain.

Correct. Every single person in China doubles the average of everyone in USA, EU and India. This isn't actually realistic though because massive portions of China's population are still backwater rural people. It means China's megacities are the most carbon polluting sources on earth.

I still don't see how protestors in Britain take themselves seriously. Even in the US it's laughable.

3

pawnman99 t1_jdlw6jk wrote

Do you think the atmosphere cares where the CO2 is coming from?

1

birnabear t1_jdlysyp wrote

Nope, which is precisely why when looking at relative success or failure to minimise CO2 output, per capita is a better comparison. We are one planet, so arbitrary national boarders are less important than getting the global output down. It's via per capita you see where the best gains can come from.

0

pawnman99 t1_jdm1c91 wrote

Yeah... not from any of the countries with protests.

1

birnabear t1_jdnlpis wrote

Not true at all

0

pawnman99 t1_jdnurpb wrote

True. Protesters in Germany managed to get nuclear plants shut down in exchange for coal fired plants.

0

birnabear t1_jdnyqi4 wrote

And still a lot of work to go.

0

pawnman99 t1_jdo0ys8 wrote

Yeah, because they're going the wrong fucking way.

0

birnabear t1_jdomvko wrote

Seems to be going the right way to me. In 1979 they produced 14.35 tons per capita. In 2021 they were 8.09 tons per capita.

1