←back to thread

399 points gmays | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.292s | source | bottom
Show context
abdullahkhalids ◴[] No.42166327[source]
The last IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C, humans can only emit at most 1150 GtCO2 (at 67% likelihood) [1].

There are 8.2 billion humans, so about 140tCO2/person left on average. If we assume that we get to net zero by 2050, that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from today to 2050 (hitting 0tCO2/person/year in 2050). This is what emissions look like currently [2]

    Top 5 countries > 10m population
    Saudi Arabia  22.1t 
    United Arab Emirates 21.6t  
    Australia            14.5t 
    United States  14.3t
    Canada          14.0t
    Some others
    China           8.4t
    Europe 6.7t
    World average 4.7t
    Lower-middle-income countries of 1.6t
    Low-income countries 0.3t
Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything.

[1] Page 82 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics

replies(8): >>42166357 #>>42166397 #>>42166404 #>>42166583 #>>42167033 #>>42167060 #>>42167078 #>>42167129 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.42166404[source]
> that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from here on out. This is what emissions look like currently

Using a world average target number and then presenting a list that leads with world outliers is misleading. This is the kind of statistical sleight of hand that climate skeptics seize upon to dismiss arguments.

The world average is currently under the target number:

> World average 4.7t

I think you meant to imply that the CO2 emissions of poor countries were going to catch up to other countries, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The global rollout of solar power, battery storage, and cheap EVs is exceeding expectations, for example.

I don’t want to downplay the severity of the situation, but I don’t think this type of fatalistic doomerism is helping. In my experience with people from different walks of life, it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely.

replies(7): >>42166430 #>>42166512 #>>42166562 #>>42167138 #>>42167254 #>>42167323 #>>42168159 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.42166430[source]
>it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely.

In my experience, it’s the prospect of having to give up expected or dreamed about large homes, large vehicles, non seasonal/local fruits and vegetables, cheap electronics, and vacations involving flights.

replies(1): >>42166455 #
exe34 ◴[] No.42166455[source]
try suggesting that people should eat more vegetables and less meat - they see red and shout down any chance of reasoning.
replies(5): >>42166527 #>>42166559 #>>42166582 #>>42166642 #>>42166820 #
mjamesaustin ◴[] No.42166559[source]
One person's individual change is a drop of water in the ocean when compared to the vast amount of emissions and pollution and waste produced at scale by corporations.

Arguing to your neighbor why they should recycle their plastic water bottle can at most make an infinitesimal difference.

Creating a legal responsibility for Coca Cola to clean up the billions of plastic bottles it produces annually, on the other hand, could change the world.

replies(4): >>42166648 #>>42166714 #>>42166900 #>>42166913 #
1. antisthenes ◴[] No.42166648[source]
> Creating a legal responsibility for Coca Cola to clean up the billions of plastic bottles it produces annually, on the other hand, could change the world.

It would change the world in a sense of Coca Cola either going bankrupt, or shrinking to the point of irrelevance, succumbing to competitive pressure of corporations that aren't forced to do such cleanups.

Edit: Do better, HN. Explain why you disagree. This argument is a delusional meme, as if people were not the primary consumers of corporations' products. Corporations are reactionary at best and believing there's 0% responsibility on the consumer is a 5 year old child mentality.

replies(3): >>42166723 #>>42166732 #>>42168345 #
2. davidcbc ◴[] No.42166723[source]
If they aren't profitable when taking into account their negative externalities than the owners are stealing from the rest of the world and they should go bankrupt. They'd probably figure out a better way to do business instead though
3. tsunagatta ◴[] No.42166732[source]
The incoming government in America loves the idea of tariffs; why not frame it as part of a trade war in a theoretical government set on ending climate change? Place heavy tariffs on any goods that do not have the same cleanup obligations.
4. consteval ◴[] No.42168345[source]
I don't understand why enacting a 20% tariff on all imports makes sense, but enacting a 20% carbon tax on every company in order to pay off the damage of pollution is literally unthinkable and would cause every company to go under.

The days of letting companies do whatever the fuck they want and doing nothing to steer their incentives in the right direction are gone. It doesn't work, end of. We need to nudge them to do the right thing, and the only thing humans care about is money.

replies(1): >>42170435 #
5. exe34 ◴[] No.42170435[source]
tariffs are there to give Western oligarchs an extra stipend in the form of more competitive pricing without the work. a carbon tax would punish Western oligarchs along with eastern ones, and therefore not acceptable.
replies(1): >>42173958 #
6. consteval ◴[] No.42173958{3}[source]
Honestly I doubt it, because these Western oligarchs rely on cheaper labor and manufacturing in Eastern countries. I don't think any domestic companies will be able to compete even with the tariffs.