Record Surge in Global Heat

[Shadrach]

That's a very good point about how poorer countries not standing up, and taking responsibility for their deforestation, plastic disposal, air pollution, etc.
I am referring to the larger poorer countries, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. the small poor countries, suffer the most. Such as the South Pacific islands, Guam, Fiji, Marshall islands, etc.

 

[marcus]

The bias is putting blame on the rich and excusing the poor.

I disagree . I don't see him "excusing the poor" .

I very much doubt that the three have low populations ...

I guessed they have low population because the research (see link below) that the author probably used for his article list in its fig.5 , "Top 10 Consumption Emissions - per capita : Luxembourg , USA , Singapore , Australia , Canada , Belgium , Hong Kong , Iceland , Finland , Netherlands" , so I guess that the other 3 would be Luxembourg (low pop.) , Singapore (low pop.) and Australia .

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107

(Consumption-based CO2 emissions)

And if they don't, then list them with a note to that effect.

You may say you would do that , but to make his "mistake" a reason to call him biased is , in my view , your mistake .

 

[marcus]

Because the emissions are in absolute amounts, not per capita.

There are many ways to analyse data . But you seem to say that there is only your way , and other ways are #"leftard BS" (# as you said in post no.15 ) .

The article we were discussing was based on a different analysis' way (see next post below) .

... The article is basically spreading false propaganda about pollution justice- meaning whatever positive the US and EU do and decrease the emissions, the developing countries would not have any consequences about continuous pollution and increasing pollution in the name of "climate justice".

Again it seems that texts that are not according your desires , you consider as "false propaganda" (or insult the author) .

"US and EU do and decrease the emissions" as you said , is about a different subject .

That is why the soutce article is leftard propaganda, done by self loathing academics ...

From Oxford Dictionaries : loathing (for/of somebody/something) a strong feeling of hating somebody/something.

It seems its you who has "a strong feeling of hating" people who think differently from you .

 

[marcus]

From https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
Title : Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions
By Steven J. Davis and Ken Caldeira
Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University , June 2009

... Much attention has been focused on the CO2 directly emitted by each country, but relatively little attention has been paid to the amount of emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services in each country.

Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions differs from traditional, production-based inventories because of imports and exports of goods and services that, either directly or indirectly, involve CO2 emissions ...

We find that, in 2004, 23% of global CO2 emissions,.. were traded internationally, primarily as exports from China and other emerging markets to consumers in developed countries.

In some wealthy countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, the United Kingdom, and France, >30% of consumption-based emissions were imported ...

It is intuitive that individuals who benefit from a process should bear some responsibility for the associated emissions . Yet, national inventories such as those conducted annually by parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change account for only those emissions produced within sovereign territories , ignoring the benefit conveyed to consumers through international trade. In recognition of this shortcoming, a number of studies over the past decade have sought to compare production- and consumption-based emissions inventories ...

China is by far the largest net exporter of emissions, followed by Russia, the Middle East, South Africa, Ukraine, and India and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and areas of South America .

The primary net importers of emissions are the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, all Western Europe ...

 

[Bob]

I disagree . I don't see him "excusing the poor" .

I guessed they have low population because the research (see link below) that the author probably used for his article list in its fig.5 , "Top 10 Consumption Emissions - per capita : Luxembourg , USA , Singapore , Australia , Canada , Belgium , Hong Kong , Iceland , Finland , Netherlands" , so I guess that the other 3 would be Luxembourg (low pop.) , Singapore (low pop.) and Australia .

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107

(Consumption-based CO2 emissions)


You may say you would do that , but to make his "mistake" a reason to call him biased is , in my view , your mistake .

The words 'of the 10 biggest emitters of CO2 in the world per capita (including emissions imported via consumption), 7 are “rich” countries' means that 3 aren't 'rich'. So why list only the rich ones if the aim is not to point only at rich countries as the source of the problem? The gist of the article sure seems to be that the rich world has created a problem for the poor world to bear. There's no mention of 'poor' countries' very significant responsibility for that same problem. It's not an unbiased piece of work.

 

[marcus]

... 7 are “rich” countries' means that 3 aren't 'rich'. So why list only the rich ones

I agree that the author could be clearer , but be assured that more than the 10 top of the list are "rich per capita" .
Average people of poor countries hardly has electricity , a TV or a refrigerator , so how could they generate big pollution ?

I think that by "rich" the author meant "big GDP" (although Russia in 2004 had a relatively small GDP , around 35% of Italy's GDP and a little less than Australia's GDP) .

... The gist of the article sure seems to be that the rich world has created a problem for the poor world to bear. There is no mention of 'poor' countries ...

The author never said that "the problem was created only by the rich" or similar .
It is obvious that every human creates pollution , there is no need to mention it .

There's no mention of 'poor' countries' very significant responsibility for that same problem ...

Not "very significant" .

From https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
(in 1'000kg of CO2/person/year 2004)

• USA : 22 , Netherlands : 14
• Cambodia : 0.31 , Ethiopia : 0.12

 

[Shadrach]

I agree that the author made mistake in the text , but be assured that more than the 10 top of the list are "rich per capita" . Average people of poor countries hardly has electricity , a TV or a refrigerator , so how can they generate big pollution ?

I think that by "rich" he meant "big GDP" (although Russia in 2004 had a relatively small GDP , around 35% of Italy's GDP and a little less than Australia's GDP) .

What I understood from the article is that : the rich people are the ones who did the bigger part of the problem , but the poor people are the ones to suffer the most due to the problem .

Not "very significant" , in my view . The objective of the article is very simple , so I don't think that it is necessary to add things like that .

Yes, the rich countries introduced gasoline, diesel, LPG, plastics, etc. to the poorer countries, but hey, look around you in SE Asia. The people now have cars, motorbikes, trucks, use tons of gasoline, LPG, diesel, and they mostly throw the plastic rubbish all over the place, or they burn it.
Just look at the sides of the streets, the streams, rivers, beaches, ocean!
There are no programs, for educating the people, No recycling bins, only a few places that will recycle plastic water bottles!
It is time for the Governments of the world, to step up and MAKE the petrochemical corporations be responsible for this waste, to take it back, and recycle, or dispose of it in the most environmentally way possible!

Or better yet, start using a biodegradable oil, seaweed, or something to make plastic with, so it biodegrades into something safe, and organic for the Planet!
Hey, we all use plastic for everything now. I am not against it, I just want it to be made out of what I said.
Come on, Elon Musk, instead of wasting billions of Dollars on going to Mars. Create safe Plastic!!
All these numbers and statistics are not solving the problem!

 

[marcus]

... All these numbers and statistics are not solving the problem!

We need numbers and statistics to better know the problem , otherwise we cannot properly deal with it .

But , yes there are simple/easy actions that the governments (from rich and poor countries) could start doing even before analyzing the numbers , but unfortunately almost nothing is being done .

 

[Bob]

I agree that the author could be clearer , but be assured that more than the 10 top of the list are "rich per capita" .
Average people of poor countries hardly has electricity , a TV or a refrigerator , so how could they generate big pollution ?

I think that by "rich" the author meant "big GDP" (although Russia in 2004 had a relatively small GDP , around 35% of Italy's GDP and a little less than Australia's GDP) .

The author never said that "the problem was created only by the rich" or similar .
It is obvious that every human creates pollution , there is no need to mention it .

Not "very significant" .

From https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
(in 1'000kg of CO2/person/year 2004)

• USA : 22 , Netherlands : 14
• Cambodia : 0.31 , Ethiopia : 0.12

There is plenty of deforestation, dirty fuel use etc. in even the poorest of places. And they have refrigerators and TV's too.
Most would say India, Indonesia, even China and Brazil are poor. Why no mention of them if the article's not biased?