undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDrScientist1y ago0 comments

It's easy to have the highest growth if you start from nowhere - when somebody quotes growth you should instantly be on guard for BS. For example the US could have gone from 1000 to 1020, and China from 200 to 220 - focusing on the larger percentage increase from China is rather missing the point.

You are also forgetting total carbon emissions over the lifetime of a country - developed countries are responsible for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere - and while developing countries might be catching up in day to day emissions they are nowhere in catching up in total emissions.

0 comments

caminante1y ago

Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions.

This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing.

And cumulative emissions? Another ironic critique, given China is by far the largest and fastest growing emitter. Assuming you agree with the 1.5C target increase, we have a limited budget. Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

DrScientistOP1y ago

It's about per capita basis - it's still roughly half the US emissions per capita and while it may be growing it still has a long way to catch up.

The population of China is about 4x the US.

> Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill - while China is leading on renewable generation.

Hardly anybody is doing enough - but blaming others and doubling down on consumption it's a sustainable strategy either.

caminante1y ago

> while China is leading on renewable generation.

...and they're also #1 by far on GHG emissions, which doesn't offset even proportionally.

It's like saying Bob might be a murderer, but...he's really works hard to teach each Sunday during Bible study. You're just moving the goalpost (and you never acknowledged how your initial critique about number sense was off base).

> Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill

Whataboutism fallacy on top of recency bias, i.e., the US has been the largest producer of natgas since 2009 and petro since 2013.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsDrScientist1y ago0 comments

0 comments

caminante1y ago

Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions.

This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing.

DrScientistOP1y ago

It's about per capita basis - it's still roughly half the US emissions per capita and while it may be growing it still has a long way to catch up.

The population of China is about 4x the US.

> Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill - while China is leading on renewable generation.

Hardly anybody is doing enough - but blaming others and doubling down on consumption it's a sustainable strategy either.

caminante1y ago

> while China is leading on renewable generation.

...and they're also #1 by far on GHG emissions, which doesn't offset even proportionally.

> Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill

Whataboutism fallacy on top of recency bias, i.e., the US has been the largest producer of natgas since 2009 and petro since 2013.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse