Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

over-populated countries aren't 'allowed' to emit more? where's the permission, exactly?
But they are, when its typically measured per capita.

There's no pressure to depopulate, there's some pressure to limit population given we have notional reduction targets based on current levels.

Still, this basically sets in stone acceptance of current unbalanced population levels, and 'developing' countries, of which China is supposedly one, are allowed to increase their emissions to per capita parity with developed nations with no check on population.

Again, China is allowed to emit 20 times what Australia emits, and is allowed to increase their population and per capita emissions, while Australia is expected to dramatically cut their total emissions (and are doing so).

It makes no sense at all and makes climate armageddon more than inevitable.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Adams_BJ
Warman is a hermaphrodite.
+2,028|5094|Little Bentcock
I dunno, 20 times more emissions at almost 60 times the population is a pretty good record.
uziq
Member
+189|1924
and china is investing a lot more in solar energy than australia. the weight of big nations swing both ways.

your obsession with ‘red peril’ and rapidly growing china leads to slightly ridiculous conclusions — like culling the population. nations come in different sizes. that picture cannot be fixed.

and yes, a country still developing and transferring its population from rural poverty to modern living has different needs and responsibilities from one in which its entire population already live in very modern, comfortable cities. at least china can justify its fossil fuel policy on social need. australia is exporting coal merely so it can try to keep a seat at the big table economically. not realistic for a small nation.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX
'Social need' - again increased carbon use justified by overpopulation.

They're in 'rural poverty' because they're overpopulated.

If we could dramatically cut the population most of the problems in the world would go away.

Instead we're going to see continued wars over resources and farmland, and epidemics due to dense population and the food production needed to feed them, never mind climate change.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+189|1924
this is all very far away from the inconvenient fact that australia's per-capita carbon emissions are quite frankly criminal, and the government is cynically proceeding with policies that play-off international tensions against one another so that australia's elite can continue to plunder fossil fuel wealth and blur over the structural weaknesses of australia's economy.

your malthusian pet fantasies and bad statistics are a bore at this point.

also china's population haven't been in rural poverty for generations because of over-population. read a fucking book.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 05:17:36)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

australia's per-capita carbon emissions are quite frankly criminal
Whats 'criminal' about it?

How much iron ore production, aluminium smelting, large scale (and efficient) farming is done across Europe these days?
Oh look, seems Australia is doing pretty well on consumption emissions, better than many European countries.
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/consumption-co2-emissions_v6_850x600.svg

What's criminal is the population growth and density in other countries which puts so much pressure on the global system and puts us all at risk of uncontrollable pandemics.
Is it acceptable to have a population so large you can't feed yourselves with your own available land, and by default shift your emissions to someone else's country?

If the rest of the world had Australia's population density most of the world's issues would go away, climate change, deforestation, resource depletion, pollution etc and we'd have about 500 years to figure out nuclear fusion and not 20 or so.

Whats criminal is you refusing to see the point or understand simple maths.

Anyway, Australia's 'problem' is easily solved, we'll just let in 30 million Indians, lift them up to first world living standards, total emissions will rise worsening climate change  but Australian 'per capita' emissions will be cut so it will be OK.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-26 15:44:55)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+189|1924
the only people reading those statistics with such a willingly retarded rationale was you.

but it’s nice to know that, as per usual, it’s your problem with indian immigrants that really has you riled.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX
LOL OK, never mind.

Have fun with reducing 'per capita' emissions, increasing population and seeing total consumption and emissions increase.

That'll work out great.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+189|1924
dilbert the only person raising those 2 stats was you? all i said was that ranking countries based on total land area is useless beyond belief.

you're acting like the entire paris accord is written around co2 per capita.

straw meet
man

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 16:22:28)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX
Doesn't matter, are China and India going to cut their bursting populations?
Probably not.

As you said yourself:

Derpzique wrote:

the most germane fact: that PEOPLE cause the emission of CO2.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+189|1924
yes, per capita is a more useful statistic than total landmass. that's because it takes into account people rather than just geographical area.

do you need this to be explained to you?

i'm sure growing population has never occurred to anyone thinking about climate change whatsoever.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

yes, per capita is a more useful statistic than total landmass. that's because it takes into account people rather than just geographical area.
How is it useful?

Land mass is what provides for food, solar power, wind power, resources etc, just having more people doesn't make a nation's emissions OK.

The world has a limited total surface area and a proportionate limited capacity for supporting people.

Its no use shifting the production of your food, raw materials, power etc to another country then claiming your own emissions are low, and because you have a large population they're effectively diluted.

do you need this to be explained to you?
You've done a poor job so far.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-26 20:39:32)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+189|1924
really? the majority of australia's land mass is put to use providing food, solar power, wind power? seems like land is quite a misleading figure to me.

again, the only person placing such a stress on these two statistics is you. i'm not even sure what your argument is? because china and india are big, australia has no obligation to do anything whatsoever? seems wise.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,635|4578|eXtreme to the maX
No, China and India are overpopulated, hence their emissions are colossal.
Epstein didn't kill himself

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard