←back to thread

399 points gmays | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
zahlman ◴[] No.42167078[source]
>This is what emissions look like currently [2]

So, the world average is currently below the ration, and thus as long as we're actually headed for that net zero we're going to be in reasonably good shape?

>Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything.

Oh, this is actually about calling people bad because of what country they live in, never mind where the innovation is going to come from that would actually make net zero possible (assuming it actually is).

Carry on, then, I guess.

Russia is not far behind that top 5 list, at 12.5t/person/year, by the way.

replies(3): >>42167201 #>>42167416 #>>42167626 #
ithkuil ◴[] No.42167201[source]
This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever.

If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.

They are people just like you and me who are just a little bit behind in the development curve and they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle.

Countries who are currently high emitters but also applying active measures to curb it must be praised instead of pointing fingers. The political will to improve things is fragile and people can easily vote for populists that will easily exploit resistance towards guilt shaming.

replies(1): >>42167759 #
zahlman ◴[] No.42167759[source]
>If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.... they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle.

The hope is that whatever the developed world has settled on by 2050 to achieve net zero, lower-income countries will be able to switch to directly instead of going through a phase of fossil fuel consumption. China was too early; India for example might see a much healthier trajectory. The association of greenhouse gasses with the lifestyle of the richest countries is hoped to be only incidental.

replies(1): >>42175134 #
1. ithkuil ◴[] No.42175134{3}[source]
It's possible, just like many countries have jumped straight to mobile phone and avoided wired infrastructure.

In any case, that's the result of continuous improvement and progress and my point was that we cannot get there by just shaming countries that are making that incremental progress right now.