Because it gets him attention.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
It was simply to illustrate the point that it costs money to live this guilt free eco warrior lifestyle, and people in poverty (a large proportion of the planet's population) are going to struggle with it. A spoilt child with no life experience and little character isn't very relatable in my opinion.
Except no - because those with the highest levels of poverty have the lowest footprints. Hence why low GDP countries have very low emissions per head.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true
All the data to prove you wrong is backed up there.
Quick extract.
High income
Year 2014
CO2 emissions per capita 10.9
Upper middle income
2014
6.5
Middle income
2014
3.9
Low & middle income
2014
3.5
Lower middle income
2014
1.5
Low income
2014
0.3
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
But just look at the amount of garbage on the streets and in the seas around poor countries...
I suspect much of the polution there isn't even being recorded.
It's not that straightforward.
Here is an article for you:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a
And another one:
https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions
And another one:
https://futureoflife.org/2016/08/05/developing-countries-cant-afford-climate-change/?cn-reloaded=1
China and in the future places like India will be the biggest culprits for carbon emissions.
Serious problems are also occurring in low income countries where they are burning down rain forests to make room for cattle farming and other similar issues. This type of impact is irreparable and is nothing to do with developed countries.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-climate-change-jair-bolsonaro-a9088396.html
Most developed countries are successfully reducing their carbon footprint (including the UK), although it is probably not enough it is at least going in the right direction now. Developing countries are burning more and more fossil fuels as they catch up in industrial terms, and with their massive and still growing populations this is set to spiral out of control in the future.
From your first link
"
Synopsis
Per capita carbon footprints increase proportionally to income, but the most important contributors shift from food to mobility and manufactured products."
Which disputes your first statement and proves mine.
For your second link - yes, 63% of emissions are from developing countries, but look at their populations compared to developed countries! India produces as much as russia, india has a population about 10x that of russia! Again, supports my point. Poorer individuals produce less CO2.
Third link just states that as well.
Fourth link is irrelevant to the point of per capita carbon emissions.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
What you and I do won't have any effect.
There are 100 companies responsible for 70% of world emissions. Until they sort out their act. Nothing we do matters
There are 100 companies responsible for 70% of world emissions. Until they sort out their act. Nothing we do matters
Yes, but those companies rely on us as customers. They don't just produce CO2 for poops and giggles!
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
Mining, shipping, chemical etc.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
When was the last time you bought coal from China, or Russia?
One Chinese company is responsible for 14% of world emissions.
Likely any time I've bought something made in China since the power to produce it likely came from a coal fired plant...
My point was that it is more complicated than you are proposing.
Per capita doesn't matter when there are 30 times more of them than there are of us.
It doesn't even matter if I produce double what they do, if there are 30 times more of them that means that country is still producing 15 times more than ours is.
Just look at China vs UK:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/china/uk
Except your statement was that poor people produce more. That's incorrect. As I, and you, have proven.
I think it's fairly obvious grimm meant that people with money can afford to **** about picking and choosing the 'green' options whilst the folks who are skint just take what they can get, which usually isn't the most enviromentally friendly
No if you actually learn to read you will notice that I said that the problem is being stored up for the future in some instances, and China is a big problem right now.
Here, I will quote myself for you:
Here is some data presented in a bit more easily digestible format for you:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
You will see that the UK is producing very little in terms of CO2 in the grand scheme of things.
No you didn't. You said it costs money to live an ecowarrior lifestyle. And that those in poverty are going to struggle. Look;
See. And as proven, those in true poverty don't struggle to produce less because they can't afford the things that do produce it.