| > You can google all the stats I provided Did, and did not find what you suggested. I did find a 300 dollar figure which just reflects cost, not the number of toys. > For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR As I said: everyone has a higher carbon footprint in the West, mainly owing to infrastructure and industry. The combined consumer spending choices are not what is leading to the extra tonnage. Here's the breakdown straight from the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Industry. Electricity. Transportation. Agriculture. Commercial and Residential COMBINED are just 13%. Americans are not consuming so much more than Europeans as to generate 10 extra tons of carbon. The average spending reflects it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... . Not to mention this doesn't take into account prices, and digital service & goods consumption. I hope that clears any doubts. > That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel. The suburban experiment is a North American one, and America is absolutely huge. Infrastructure is vastly more expensive to maintain in NA, and yes there are inefficiencies everywhere. Simply living, having access to water, electricity and food, creates more emissions in America based on location. Suburbs are money-losers and subsidized by city-centers, despite the taxes on residents there. Sprawled cities are way more wasteful than dense cities, and America is a nation of sprawled cities. Ultimately, you're dwelling on a red herring. I addressed the primary issue already. Sustainability matters because of scale. If the population were actually stagnant, a) consumption would not lead to increased emissions anywhere, b) we'd actually address the problem. Bullying consumers does not. It's just a race to the bottom. Sustainability matters because of scaling. |