Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

>> It's just nuts, really, something is terribly wrong with our world, and we need to fix it.

You should probably start with developing countries like China and India. The US has been actively reducing its carbon footprint for a while now:

Energy related carbon emissions in the United States declined by 12% between 2005 and 2012, back to a level not seen since 1994.

Per capita emissions fell 17% over the same period, and are now at their lowest level in 50 years.

This decline in emissions occurred across the US economy, with the switch from coal to natural gas in the power sector responsible for just 35-40% of the drop.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/us-carbon-emissions-decline

View on HN

Per-capita CO2 emissions by countries, 2011:

    US 17.0t
    China 6.7t
    India 1.7t

Yeah, we should totally talk to China and India.

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?order=wba...

Total CO2 emissions by countries, 2014:

    US 5.3 Gt
    China 10.5 Gt
    India 2.3 Gt

Yeah, China and India are totally relevant to global CO2 emissions. The global climate doesn't give a damn about how many people are responsible for a given quantity of emissions, it's completely and utterly uncaring.

So, if China decides to divide itself into ten countries, each with 1.05 Gt emission, the earth will be so much better?

The global climate doesn't give a damn about national borders, either.

Of course China is important, because decisions made by its government can affect a billion people, but the same can be said for the US. (Good luck persuading Chinese people to reduce their emission, if the US doesn't commit itself to do the same.)

Both factors are important, period. Whether it's people who are emitting a lot per capita today or countries with lots of people who are increasing their emissions.

You cannot have a reasonable discussion about CO2 emissions without talking about India and China.

Let's say the US halves its per capita emissions tomorrow. Hey, that's fantastic right?

But then let's say China and India come up to match the US's per capita emissions levels. That would increase China's emissions by 25% and India's emissions by 5x. Increasing total emissions for all 3 countries by 50%.

Even if the US stops emitting CO2 tomorrow, if China and India reach 50% of the US's per capita emissions they will together account for 1.2x the total emissions of the US, China, and India today.

Pretending that because the US has much higher per capita emissions today means that it's ok to ignore the rest of the world is pure fantasy. That's the point. We should totally "talk" to China and India. Nobody gets a free pass.

>> if the US doesn't commit itself to do the same.)

By the stats I posted, it seems we're doing quite a lot actually. Unless you have other data that would indicate otherwise.

This isn't how math works. Averages matter. What the world doesn't give a damn about is country borders.

Also, enough with the blame game. All three countries have to put in all possible efforts.

> Also, enough with the blame game. All three countries have to put in all possible efforts.

That's the point. Some people seem to think that shouldn't be the point. But it has to be. There's only one biosphere, nobody gets a free pass for carbon emissions just because some other country had higher per capita emissions in 2015, that's not how that works.

Please provide a source to validate your numbers.

http://bfy.tw/3pkg

Per unit GDP is a better metric. Carbon is produced from production not from people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

By that metric China is among the worst in the world and India isn't far behind.

And to whom do you think the Chinese and Indians are selling all the products of their export oriented industries?

Or for the matter, where do you think all the American safe, high-paying, manufacturing jobs went?

Outsourcing to a hitman does not make it a non-murder.

I agree that China and India need to reduce their emissions. But those don't seem like the US numbers we should actually be looking at. What are energy related carbon emission vs. total emissions? And what happened to US population over that period?

It would be helpful to have a number for total emissions.

Usually countries stop burning coal and use something that emits less CO2 as they develop. Except the US. It's still burning the most coal per capita, by far.

Getting rid of coal is a great place to start.

Countries get rid of it by burning it, then they stop burning it because its gone. Britain didn't intentionally start lowering production in 1910, they literally burned it all, then had to find something else.

The UK produced significant coal until the early 1980s and the significant reduction in output then was for political rather than geological reasons.

Actually it was for economic reasons. The UK lost comparative advantage for coal production. The way they mine coal in the UK is positively archaic compared to monster open cut mines which out produce the UK deep pits by a wide margin.

> Actually it was for economic reasons.

Well, a bit of both. True it was not economically sound, but the NUM (coal miners union) had a lot of leverage. All coal power plants had to buy British coal for example, which in turn meant that the government had to capitulate to their demands or face a shutdown. Thatchers decision to shut the mines was incredibly unpopular and to this day large swathes of the north despise her (somewhat unduly), but in combination with a wave of privatization managed to break the union stranglehold. Without the Iron Lady taking that step the mines would have been open for far far longer.

Some of the mines she closed would actually be profitable now though, due to the rising cost of coal.

Yeah the way they were kept open and then shut down was purely political, no argument there. But they were doomed in an era of free trade. Arguably the UK should have moved to free trade earlier and reaped the benefits instead of arguing about coal mining. I don't have a lot of hope for people to ever agree on that though.

It's true that old mines can reopen during periods of high demand, but they'd be shutting again now as the coal price has plummeted again, probably due to the energy glut especially in gas. In an ideal world the mines would be owned by someone who would open them when it made sense, and close them again when it no longer made sense.

This isn't always a fair comparison. Some of the UK pits were high quality anthracite. Also some cost savings could surely have been made if the two political sides had been able to actually make meaningful compromises.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com