[evandale]

> Wealthy countries like Canada and the US have profited from blowing carbon in the atmosphere over centuries and got wealthy from it

It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison.

We have cleaner methods now, and my province doesn't even have any coal plants left. Our energy costs are through the roof because of that effort to save the planet. Meanwhile China continues to pollute more and more yoy, undoing any progress the rest of the world makes, at a mind boggling scale using outdated technology with no regard for the rest of the world.

[lambertsimnel]

> It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations, not a population 1.5b so it's hardly a fair comparison.

I think the idea is to compare countries' per-person impact. Otherwise, a country as populous as China is being held to a higher standard. How else should we compare countries?

[evandale]

Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries.

edit: to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change...

[lambertsimnel]

> Per-person statistics mean literally nothing when we're talking about a global problem that doesn't care about man-made boundaries.

As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders?

> to elaborate, if I was allowed to immigrate to China I'd lower my per-capita emissions overnight and be a better citizen in the world. Or if Canada allowed mass immigration and tripled our population our per-capita would drop like a rock. Except I highly doubt it works that way and would solve climate change...

If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration? (Of course, we also ought to consider any variation in per-capita emissions both in locations with net immigration and in locations with net emigration.) Maybe economies of scale help explain lower per-capita emissions in some locations (but not necessarily at national level).

[evandale]

> As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders?

How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income?

> If migration could lower per-capita emissions as you describe, wouldn't that count in favour of that migration?

I pointed out how absurd that was, not that it was a good idea.

[lambertsimnel]

>> As the climate doesn't care about man-made boundaries, isn't that all the more reason gauge emissions on a per-capita basis, without reference to borders?

> How do you do that? Measuring per-capita can't be done without drawing a border somewhere. Split it up by income?

Possibly by income, but there are other options. Other than being impractical (and possibly suggesting individuals are freer to vary their emissions unilaterally than they actually are), we could in theory actually measure individual emissions. How about measuring per-capita emissions regionally, and with regions sub-divided by population density?

[evandale]

> and possibly suggesting individuals are freer to vary their emissions unilaterally than they actually are

This already exists in the form of carbon credits and people/companies spending money elsewhere (like planting trees) to "offset" the pollution they create. The rich are able to absorb the costs of the carbon taxes and will continue to do whatever they want because they're carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is complete nonsense. This isn't a "calories in, calories out" situation where you can "maintain" if you spit out 100 units of pollution today but buy trees that will suck up that 100 units over 50 years. It's still ending up in the atmosphere and making things worse today.

> How about measuring per-capita emissions regionally, and with regions sub-divided by population density?

Sure, then that way Alberta will be considered an oil producing region and get a pass for their high per-capita emissions just like Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. I made this comment elsewhere and this is exactly why I think it's unfair to point at Canada and the per-capita emissions. Our big industry and small population is the cause of our high per-capita emissions, and we have an enormous amount of clean energy but we never get credit for that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32977516

[ForHackernews]

> It was done at the scale of 30m and 300m populations

In other words, Canada and the US were even worse polluters with their small populations.