Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how. Particulates don't persist in the atmosphere that long. I understand a little bit of this stuff makes it across the Pacific, but not a whole lot. Living on the east coast, I'm basically unaffected by it except when I go to China, and most Americans don't do that.

If we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, then yes, further cutting emissions in the US is probably not going to do much good compared to putting similar effort into China. But CO2 is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's one which can even be at odds with combating other types of pollution in some cases (as we saw in the VW emissions scandal).

View on HN

CO2 emission per capita (2013): USA 16.5 t China 7.6 t

So better turn off your electronic devices etc. NOW.

We are not talking about CO2 emissions here....

You did write If we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, then yes, further cutting emissions in the US is probably not going to do much good compared to putting similar effort into China.

I think it's fair to point out that the US cutting emissions could have a larger impact than China limiting increases (at least on a per capita basis).

The only relevant question for that part is: for each dollar spent (or other measure of wealth/effort), how much reduction do you get in each place?

I'd wager that you get much more bang for your buck in China. The US is much more efficient at generating wealth from CO2 emissions: our emissions are about half, while our GDP is somewhat larger. China still has a lot of low-hanging fruit when it comes to cutting CO2 emissions.

In any case, per-capita doesn't matter at all unless you want to come at it from a moral angle.

Per capita is a FOOLISH measure here. China's population is more than 4x ours and rapidly growing AND urbanizing.

I disagree. It's a good way of evaluating what someone in the US is asking of the Chinese when they say that the Chinese should do more to limit emissions. They are asking the people in China to do with less than they have.

It certainly shouldn't be the only measure that gets discussion.

> I don't see how. Particulates don't persist in the atmosphere...

You said

> I would really hate to see the US loosen pollution regulations because of some weird idea that we shouldn't bother cleaning up our air unless everybody else does too.

which, to me, only makes sense for types of pollution that are shared. Why would anyone think that China's position one way or the other on a strictly local pollutant should influence the corresponding US policy?

But in any case, my comment is true regardless. Even for local pollutants, there will be more low hanging fruit in China.

I assumed we were talking about local pollution since that's the topic of the article. As certain commenters elaborated, it became clear that they were focused on CO2 instead, but given the context of the conversation it took some time to make that shift.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com