from the the-single-set-was-when-I-carried-you dept.
regift_of_the_gods writes:
"Bill Gates recently tweeted a clever interactive map put together by National Geographic (revised edition posted last November) showing the relative carbon footprints of the world's major economies, based on data provided by the nonprofit World Resources Institute (Washington, DC). So who's the biggest offender? Well, that depends on the wording of the question; observe how the answer changes as you select a view above the map. With respect to current emissions, China leads, with the United States a rather distant second. Calculated on a per capita basis, though, the top four are Australia, the U.S., Canada, and Saudi Arabia; China drops far down. For an interesting metric labeled 'intensity' (footprint divided by GDP), South Africa, Russia, and China appear to be the culprits. Then finally, there's the historical (cumulative) footprint since 1850, when the Industrial Revolution was just getting under way. No prize for guessing which two regions of the world lead the way there. This seems to graphically illustrate how incredibly difficult it is for political leaders to have a conversation on economically sensitive topics like global warming when each side can bring up convenient facts to counter the other sides' arguments."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday March 07 2014, @11:08AM
Patato potato: like it would matter what statistical or political games one enjoys playing.
The atmosphere doesn't care who and how and why: it just react trapping more heat as the CO2 concentration goes higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday March 07 2014, @11:48AM
Yes, and my conclusion from this is that it's absolute emissions that count; we should have less emphasis on per-capita emissions.
A country can be considered broadly responsible for its population size. e.g. Prime Minister Erdogan should not be rewarded for wanting every Turkish woman to have 5 babies [bloomberg.com]. Turkey already has double the average population density.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Taco Cowboy on Friday March 07 2014, @12:35PM
What we should have is to find ways to cut down our own personal carbon emission .
No amount of finger pointing - not by nations nor by us - will help Mother Earth.
We should take responsibility on what WE do, not what we want others to do.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday March 07 2014, @12:58PM
Personal responsibility is an absoulte bare minimum, and it includes the number of children we have.
I almost never fly, rarely drive, turn down my heating, and (far outweighing all those other things combined) intend to have a vasectomy after 2 children - even though I'd love to have a large family. This doesn't make me a hero. Ideally I'd like to convince other people to move in the same direction, but I'm probably a bit too selfish to spend much time and money on that.
P.S. I probably should have said "we should have less emphasis on per-capita emissions in our international discussions".
(Score: 1) by kingduct on Friday March 07 2014, @03:23PM
I do exactly what you do (avoid flying and driving, had two kids and a vasectomy, even raise much of my own food in my garden). I agree with you 100% -- I'm aware that even that's not good enough, considering how things are going.
I know that one individual doesn't matter in a statistical sense. Yet, what I do is also a political statement. I have to walk the walk if I'm going to believe that climate change is real and dangerous (and I do believe the latter is the case, especially for the poor, who make up most of the world's population).
There are far too many who bemoan global warming and yet behave as though it is not a problem. At this point, these people are a big part of the problem!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kingduct on Friday March 07 2014, @03:29PM
Above, I stated that I try to use fewer resources basically as a statement as an example. However, this rule does not just apply to individuals.
This approach applies to countries just as much. I've spent a fair amount of my life living in the third world in an area where people have vastly lower ecological footprints than Americans. What do they see? Americans act as though they have the right to pollute an enormous amount and the reward for doing so is a better quality of life. So naturally what do people in the third world emulate? The American way of life!
If we want China and India and other developing countries to move in the direction of cleaner technologies and ways of life, we need to set the example of how to do so. We cannot sit around and cry about others polluting. We need to show that this is a priority for us and that taking this seriously is a priority for quality of life in the 21st century.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday March 07 2014, @03:55PM
Yes. I see it as a small sacrifice compared to what most previous generations have gone through.
I hope that my great-great-great-grandchildren - and all their fellow humans at that time, no matter which country they are in - won't have to worry about these kinds of issues. I hope they will all be able to fly around on a whim in their own personal helicopters, or whatever, because the human population size is low enough to allow for a high quality lifestyle to be indefinitely sustainable (e.g. with 100% renewable energy).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday March 07 2014, @03:00PM
Yes, this is correct. But difficult to implement.
There are, however, some small improvements.
Air quality has improved since gasoline and diesel were reformulated. (L.A. in the sixties looked a lot like Bejing) Industrial filtration has improved air quality in industrial areas (in the sixties, Lewiston ID would be covered by a layer of horrid smelling smog from their paper mill. It can still be bad but not near as bad as then)
Overall MSW (Municipal Solid Waste, govspeak for 'trash')going into landfills in the U.S. is on a downward trend (while amount produced rises...the problem)recycling programs on state and city levels has been quite successful.
The last time the EPA reported the national recycling figures was in 2009 for 243 million tons of trash generated:
82 million tons composted or recycled for recovery rate of 33.8 percent
29 million tons of MSW combusted for energy recovery
74 percent of office-type paper recovered
60 percent of yard trimmings recovered
34.5 percent of metals recycled
7 million tons of metals recycled reduced greenhouse gas emissions at equivalent of removing 5 million cars from road for one year
Approximately 9,000 community curbside recycling programs exist in United States, increase over reported 2002 figure of 8,875
Approximately 3,000 community composting programs exist - decrease from reported 2002 figure of 3,227 programs
Current amount of MSW per-person discarded in landfills lower than 1960
Due to population growth, current total amount discarded MSW in landfills significantly higher than in 1960, yet lower than 1990
and WA state (my home, yea! legal weed!)
25% was considered a maximum level in 1985. In 2011, the recycling rate for Washington State reached 50.7%; the first time the recycling rate topped the 50% goal set by a 1989 Washington state law.
The problem is getting the individual on board with this? (I recycle appx 40%, with almost no effort. And as I have not put forth an effort to increase this, I am part of the problem as well)Here, recycling is so efficient at the other end of the chain, a lot of people (yes, me too) just don't try too hard.
How do we get 'ME' on-board? After that, how do we get the rest of the world on board.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dublet on Friday March 07 2014, @11:56AM
Very true. In this case, everybody is pretty much right. China should get it's emissions under control as they're such a big emitter in total, but the US and Canada in particular need to address their per capita emissions. These are not mutually exclusive as far as I can see.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Friday March 07 2014, @03:04PM
These are the kinds of games that organizations (and countries) are always playing with numbers in vain attempts to shape perceptions. The parent post is correct in that the final, bottom line measure must be total carbon emission. All other measures allow carbon emissions to increase, even if the measurement appears to be improving. However, these secondary measures (per capita, per unit GDP, etc.) can make sense as internal metrics, to help pinpoint potential problem areas or targets for improvement. There is a potential complicating factor here, though, and it would serve everyone well to learn about Simpson's paradox as applied to combined vs. aggregate data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox [wikipedia.org]
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday March 07 2014, @11:27AM
That pretty much sums up the entire anthropogenic question. It depends entirely on how you select the data. So what have we learned? Nothing, "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is already an established maxim.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mascot on Friday March 07 2014, @01:00PM
I thought this was a community of intelligent technically minded people. I thought that a scientific approach and analysis of data was to be aplauded.
"It depends entirely on how you select the data"
No it doesn't- You should look at all the data and work out which data are reliable and which data is politically motivated rubbish. You shouldn't "Select the data" and people doing this are pushing an agenda not answering a scientific question.
"lies, damned lies, and statistics" is already an established maxim.
Is this an excuse to give up on a question because it's too hard?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday March 07 2014, @02:10PM
"I thought this was a community of intelligent technically minded people."
So did I. And I recognize that even the most brilliant minds can be dead wrong once in a while without having to get emotional about it. Sadly I cannot say the same for my colleague. Anyway you proved my point for me, thanks. You claim that you must look at all the data, hence selection of data leads to error, which proves that if you start picking and choosing data you can essentially get any result you want. So we agree, it seems.
As for the quote, it's a warning not an excuse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mascot on Friday March 07 2014, @02:43PM
I was just a little dismayed by the defeatist tone of the OP. Whatever you views on Global Warming I would that they were motivated by a desire to understand the truth of the situation.
This is actually hard work because the question is so politically charged with such massive ramifications that huge amounts of politically motivated slanted opinion pieces are written with cherry-picked data. The best data and discussions are found in peer-reviewed journal articles which are not very accessible.
Fortunately we have a large number of specialists in the area (climate scientists) whose job it is to work out what is going on full time. As with every other branch of science I trust the global scientific community to deliver an opinion based as far as possible on the best data and inductive reasoning. Lifes to short to work everything out from first principles.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday March 07 2014, @04:29PM
I think we'll never understand the truth about a great many things because they happen on scales so vastly different than our own. Oh we can pretend we understand and have little hypotheses, etc. But how do you actually prove something on a cosmic timescale or a geological time scale or a sub-atomic scale - not possible. Best guess. We've moved on from the day when best guess used to be "god" or "dragons" or "turtles (I like that one)", but not as far as to call anything proof.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @11:49AM
I think the most important metric is what they called "intensity": By improving the intensity (that is, the efficiency), you can reduce your impact without hampering your economy.
Obviously China has to do the most work in that regard (and with China being the biggest contributor also in absolute terms, it would be also the most effective change).
(Score: 1) by mascot on Friday March 07 2014, @01:39PM
Intensity is a terrible metric because it allows carbon emissions to stay flat or increase. The environment doesn't care about intensity, it only cares about carbon emissions. The only people who care about intensity are politicians because it provides confusing figures which sound like progress is being made.
Intensity targets were championed by George Bush and later Stephan Harper because carbon intensity had been falling, even as emissions rose. They couldn't ratify Kyoto, they didn't want to limit emissions so they found the one metric which was falling (carbon intensity) and tried to make that the focus of policy discussion.
bad politicians- can we vote for some guys who want to fix the problem rather than obfuscate the issue?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @12:18PM
I'm also very curious for such a map that not only weighs emission but the amount of garbage we put into the ground or a more general pollution factor. ....) that the country has to soak some of that CO2 back up.
Also compare this to the amount of green land (rain forests, jungle, forests,
It's one thing to say that a country has more emission than another country based on one of the mentioned metrics. But if said country has a very large green area that can compensate it quite a bit.
(Score: 1) by lord_rob the only on on Friday March 07 2014, @12:41PM
Of course Australia is on top based on capita when you take the number of forests burnt and the surface of the continent ... Sad
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @12:49PM
That term is more judgmental than would seem warranted. Against whom or what are the heavy emitters offending?
(Score: 1) by mascot on Friday March 07 2014, @01:30PM
They are offending against everyone else on the planet particularly future generations for thousands of years.
The term is actually less judgmental than warranted if anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @02:14PM
Are offenders exclusively countries (as discussed in TFA) or also individuals? Do you consider yourself an offender? I know we are all sinners, but just think "offender" is a stronger term than necessary for emitting an inert gas whose effect on our future climate is subject to vigorous debate.
(Score: 1) by mascot on Friday March 07 2014, @02:55PM
I am an offender yes, but I try to do the right thing. Do I have a carbon footprint of zero- no I don't, but there are degrees of culpability. I actually think it is unreasonable to expect individuals to take personal responsibility and so we should have laws and regulations (as we do with many many other pollutants) which set a clear line and standard. Voluntary sacrifice is to be encouraged but will not change the world.
The attitude "Everyone is guilty so lets not point fingers" is understandable but doesn't help us solve the issue. What we need to do is form an international consensus and calling out countries holding back the cause is entirely justified, I would personally prefer a stronger line such as economic sanctions.
The article is clearly discussing offending countries, and these countries are preventing the global community from coming together to solve a serious issue.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Buck Feta on Friday March 07 2014, @02:17PM
China's environmental footprint is larger because they manufacture, for example, a shipping container full of cheap, plastic iPhone protectors for shipment to WalMart and sale in the US. How do you account for the responsibility for that impact? There are many ways to slice and dice this.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday March 07 2014, @02:49PM
That is an intriguing thought. Apple manufactures "cheap" plastic covers for their phones in China, because the labor (I figure materials) are way less then manufacturing in the US. Yet the carbon cost, shipping raw materials in, shipping finished products back (via container ships and/or airplanes) and still then trucking them around the countryside most also have a cost. Where is that hidden?
Could it be that manufacturing jobs went overseas more because of regulation then just cheap labor? As bad CEO it costs me x dollars to produce a product in the US because of labor and regulations, but if I build a plant in some 3W country, I "maximize profit", by manufacturing without the cost of regulation compliance. However, I have to pay shipping, some tariff/taxes on bringing the product back to the US, but I can hide those costs for a while and pocket a nice personal fortune.
Could it be that when you add up all the extra costs for manufacturing overseas, the final cost would be almost similar to if it was made in the US (or kept in house where ever), but executives just don't like having to follow the rules....Curious.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday March 07 2014, @04:24PM
Yes, and because of that simple fact this morning, in approxamately 2 minutes I contributed more to the U.S. and Chinese metrics than 10 poor peaple living in india.
I ordered a new computer.
Think about it. I could post a question to /., |., or SN of can you recommend what to buy for a budget gaming computer for less than $800 U.S. and a great many posters, including some of the most critical of the pollution that would be generated simply by manufacturing said device, would give me hundreds of options for their idea of 'the perfect budget gaming system.'
NONE would consider the carbon footprint of such a machine, most advice would instead INCREASE the footprint (125w chip not the 95w version! too slow!).
And to be honest, I would not of thought of it without this posting. But, I would continue to pat myself on the back for seperating my garbage, recycling and re-using what I could (without of course, too much effort) and knowing the state I live in recycles over 50% of the trash I choose not to 'bother with.'
(I am horrible at saving electricity though..I like my toys. Since electricity here is less than $0.09 per Kwh there is little incentive)
This makes me, and a lot of us as well, hypocrites.
So the main question, how do we change human nature? How do we make ME and the majority of us who care and try (somewhat try, I know some of you do a LOT more and this isn't aimed at you. Rather at us who WANT to do better, but has not become a 'state of mind' if you will) actually 'walk the walk?'
I think too, a larger percentage of active recyclers, reducers of usage, etc, exist on these sites than in the population at large. Most people I know make NO effort at all.
So, bravo for us?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khakipuce on Friday March 07 2014, @06:56PM
It would be better to see that against an equal area map projection. It is tempting to mentally compare the size of the country with the size of the carbon footprint. The projection used makes countries close to the poles look much bigger than they are and Equatorial ones countries look smaller.