this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
126 points (95.0% liked)
Climate
8516 readers
237 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is why i hate per capita, Australia is listed 3rd and India last despite Australia’s co2 emissions going down and India’s increasing by over 5 Australia’s in the last 20 years
Planet doesn’t care about per capita
Even this type of data is overly decontextualized without considering cumulative (not annual) emissions since the industrial revolution (globally), proportion of corporate contribution and off shoring. Per capita is important too.
With regard to developing nations, emissions will go up as people get pulled out of poverty and have lifestyles more like people in developed nations. It's hard to ask them not to pursue that or to delay it without coming across as hypocritical. Especially since developed nations are responsible for 50% of cumulative emissions, historically, despite being 20% of the global population (and have a higher quality of life so show for it).
Now with the US/Israel's war in Iran more nations in Asia will be burning coal due to oil supply constraints. It's easy to show a graph blaming those nations for resorting to that but several are already rationing gasoline (Americans would lose their minds lol) and the people are absolutely struggling for it.
This is the type of decontextualization that Western nations employ to pressure nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia and its often is not received well, understandably.
there were no solar panels during the industrial revolution, i care about what’s being emitted today, what is the point of us reducing our emissions for china and india ro simply slurp up all the savings and then some?
people in the west worried about climate change while somehow ignoring the elephant in the room
Sure that's one way to look at it but it's short sighted in my view. From the other perspective it comes across as the West saying they could pollute as much as they wanted to in order give their people a better life and now everyone else has to operate under strict constraints or get a finger wagging from the largest contributers to CO2 emissions in human history. That's a lot of hypocrisy.
You're right that solar panels do exist now. It should be noted that China has done more with renewables and getting ICE vehicles off the road than any Western country, many of which seem to be stuck in old habits. Nations like India and China are developing on a massive scale, actively integrating renewables into their expanding grids as they pull hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The average person in India and China contributes substantially less to global emissions than the average Westerner. So as their emissions increase, rather than seeing it as them cancelling out your efforts, you should be flattered that they want to live with the luxuries and privileges youve had for some time now. They are in no way less worthy of that.
Perhaps Western nations should be contributing less per capita than developing nations, as a way to offset their historically disproportionate contribution.
If it wasn’t per capita, we’d just be looking at population size graphs. It is useful information and shows what is possible. We should be looking at metrics like CO2 per unit of gdp also. It’s not just people, it’s industry. Some of chinas emissions are really other countries emissions, offshored for China to produce. China profits from it, of course.
I duno about that, largest countries in the world including EU:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1998..2024&country=CHN%7EUSA%7EIND%7EEuropean+Union+%2828%29%7EIDN%7EPAK%7ENGA&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+country
Agreed, I've complained about Europes false green economy when it outsources manufacturing to China, including but not limited to
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251009-2
For a population as large as Europe it's disappointing their aren't more battery and solar panel manufacturers
The problem is that EU can't compete on price. However, as they are long term it is not as much of a risk to install foreign technology that is not necessary to internet connect.
The EU is reducing, which is why per capits is important. We can see what is possible. Clearly the USA is not doing well. China has made huge inroads in green energy and I think it's a combination of wanting to be at the forefront of new technology and a need for energy security.
As it stands, china is about triple the EU, while manufacturing for them. The USA is just burning carbon for no reason as they no longer manufacture. This will worsen until ai bubble pops. They have quite a bit of nuclear power though. Their oil based economy is just too ingrained. Similar to Saudi Arabia. Why bother reducing when oil is cheap.
I fully expect tariffs in carbon pricing to be the next trade tariff globally. Whyake the hard cuts that cost.more on your internal market when the competition does it cheaper and doesn't care about environmental effects. It forces incentives to do the right thing and prevents the externalization of costs.
There is a massive issue with adjusting for trade though. If you just imagine a country lets call it Green, which has no emissions, and a another country Black, which is fully run on dirty fossil fuels. Now when both countries trade, the Green country imports emissions and the Black ones are lowered. It can be that dirty processes have been outsourced to the Black country or you can just have the Green country do things better.
When you take the EU and China you can see both. There are absolutely dirty processes outsourced to China, but at the same time things like electricity are dirtier in China then in the EU.
It matters.
The planet can sustain 10x more people if they live like people in India vs Saudi Arabia or UAE....
It's funny you want to focus on a factor of 5, though.
According to this: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/
The current Indian population is: 1,473,793,835
If India had the population of Saudi Arabia or the UAE we could all live like Saudi Arabia or the UAE
If China had the population of Saudi Arabia or the UAE we wouldn't even be discussing climate change right now
Tough argument to make. Nation states are a somewhat arbitrary construct. What if China or India were each four countries instead of one? Should we take geographical area into account? This is why the per capita measure is important.
The UAE is land mass less than 2% the size of India and China and relies on desalination plants for habitibillity. Why would either India or China have populations that small, while not having such limitations?
It's easy to say less humans is the solution (and don't worry, the world is clearly headed that direction looking at global fertility rates) but saying a specific country having less people is part of the solution, especially when it's a country with lower per capita emissions, seems difficult to justify.
because a country is made up of people and governments, who have different priorities and determine how best to respond to the climate change threat
it’s not really arbitrary, there is a very clear difference between the goals of the uk who shut all their coal power plants, germany who shut all their nuclear power plants and china who are meth head addicted to building as many coal power plants as they can despite being already no.1 in co2 emissions by a long shot
Historically, USA is still the leading source of total pollution since the industrial revolution.
China is at least progressing nicely. While America regresses.
You one of those what if'ers, eh?
China is doing an amazing job on the renewables front no doubt
But they are also doing a fantastic job installing new coal power plants
https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-just-15-countries-account-for-98-of-new-coal-power-development/
This is something they are choosing to do willingly, knowing they are the highest polluting country in the world by far
I also think the American regress is overstated
We are still seeing records broken on the regular: https://reneweconomy.com.au/grid-batteries-reach-stunning-new-peak-of-44-pct-of-evening-demand-in-worlds-fourth-biggest-economy/
A big part of this is because right wing people think renewables are economically bad and ideologically motivated, whereas in reality they are economically sound and the right wingers are the ones who are driven by ideology
The opposite, I live in reality, remember the planet doesn't care about per capita, only actual output ;)
I wouldn't call it undermining. China adding coal capacity while scaling renewables is not evidence of hypocrisy. It’s evidence of a system trying to meet rising demand and stabilize a grid during rapid buildout. Both things can be true at once without one cancelling the other.
You think right wing people think? Brrruhhhhh....
Really? You don't think building 500 coal power plants is undermining their clean energy goals? What would it take? 1000 coal power plants?
You don't think other countries are also trying to meet rising demand and stabilise their grids? I think Germany might like a word and last I saw they weren't building 500 new coal power plants
I wouldn't be talking shit about anyone, you just gave China (the current number 1 highest co2 emitter in the world by far) a free ride to pollute as much as possible while giving the USA shit for 'regressing' despite the fact the USA isn't even doing half the co2 output China is
I guess the USA can regress another few million tons of co2 a day since it's trying to meet rising demand and stabilise its grid
I could Google this. But I'm just curious what ya think...
What do you think the population of China is?
What do you think the population of Germany is?
Are those numbers not many orders of magnitude different?
Talking shit? Free rides?
What's the population of America?
And the funny thing about America - if you consider just them and ignore everybody else on the planet - just America's emissions are not sustainable. And that's only a few hundred million people. Not billions.
The thing about China, though. They're leading the world in renewables. And if you had any sense then you'd realize renewables typically only work optimally occasionally. Things like wind power only work when there's wind. Solar when there's sun. Whereas coal/oil/gas you can burn 24/7/365 until there's no more dinosaur corpses or ancient forests left to burn.
Sure, China is currently the largest annual emitter of CO₂. That’s mainly because it’s the world’s manufacturing base plus a massive ongoing infrastructure and energy expansion. But per person, the U.S. is still higher! Americans emit significantly more CO₂ per capita than Chinese citizens.
Fossil fuels are still used for dispatchability in many places(China), but batteries, grid interconnects, and demand-shifting are changing that equation fast.
You ignore history. The USA - cumulatively - has produced a lot more pollution than China - cumulatively.
hey already responded about population here
https://aussie.zone/post/31299070/22304750
also india has a bigger population than china, you can compare co2 emissions
Ah, fair point fair point.
Then why compare countries? Countries defined by arbitrary lines are just that. If you want to compare by arbitrary lines, then correct comparison would be to to compare a District in India and entire Australia. You could lower emissions of any country by splitting it into smaller pieces. You can reduce Australia's emissions even more by declaring that every Australian is a separate country, every David, John, Peter in Australia will have many times lower emissions than entire country of India, consisting 1.3 billion people.
What
Countries defined by arbitrary lines are just a group of arbitrary number of people.
defined by cultures, rules, regulations, notice which country is building a shitload of coal power plants?
https://aussie.zone/post/31299070/22308678
That is a decision they are making alone, no other country is doing this even though they could
Nah, most countries these days are defined by arbitrary lines drawn by colonisers. And it still doesn't matter. 1.3 billion >>>>> 27.4 million. 1.3 billion people will always have much more total emissions because it is 47 times more number of people. In fact, for India to maintain same lifestyle as any Australian, they will need to far more amounts of energy consumption and hence emissions than currently and they have far far less of it. May be we should split up Australia and give that land so they get equal amount of land resources allocated.
Now, also show me which countries are building largest amount of solar energy farms, nuclear energy, wind and so on and tell me why are others not doing it. And then also show me the commutative emissions of the arbitrarily defined countries over last 100 years. Development is not a privilege of some specific people.
You can reduce Australia's emissions even more by declaring that every Australian is a separate country, every David, John, Peter in Australia will have many times lower emissions than entire country of India, consisting 1.3 billion people.
sorry you’re typing words but it’s super confusing
why are we declaring every australian is a separate country?
Because it doesn't make sense to compare total emissions from 1.3 billion people with total emissions from 27.4 million people. 1.3 billion >>>>> 27.4 million.
You're right, they have an even GREATER responsibility to the planet because they have so many people
It's not my fault they had so many kids
We should split up Australia and give the land to the Indians. Only that will be fair for greater responsibility they bear.
They're sovereign citizens.
right but whether they like it or not they are within the governance of Australia and thus are covered by the policy direction of the government of Australia, elected democratically by the people of Australia, to continue the culture and work ethic and the desires of the people within the country and the laws and trade deals we have with other countries
Oh. I was more so referring to the people on YouTube that are doing stupid shit, claim this, then get arrested anyways.
I honestly have no (serious) idea.
So your complain is that the chart lacks a time axis, not that it's per-capita?
You're right. They're pushing the blame toward the people. As if the people of Saudi Arabia have any real say over industry choices.
I mean, Aussies are punching above their weight with emissions still while they have made incredible progress on the energy transition and generally have good policies.
One notable thing Australia needs to work on is coal use which is high, in the coming years this will start to drop off massively since Australia is still the lucky country when considering the next generation of energy production.
The graph is good, and soon you'll be able to see Australia drop down the list of countries in a very satisfying way.