I've recently heard a lot of environmental opponents saying that the U.S. is not the big problem when it comes to global warming... it's China! Yes, yes, how convenient. China.
Yes, in fact China does produce the most greenhouse gas emissions in the world. David Adam, a writer for The Guardian (British, if you didn't know already) gave this simple ranking: "China is now responsible for 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions, followed by the US with 22%. The EU produces 12%, India 8% and the Russian Federation 6%."
Story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/13/climatechange.carbonemissions?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
BUT, China is nowhere close to rivaling the U.S. in emissions per capita (shouldn't that be per caput?). Now, David Adam remarks on this, but so does the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. For per capita emissions they estimate: "Top 5 CO2 emissions in metric tons of CO2 per person are: USA (19.4), Russia (11.8), EU-15 (8.6), China (5.1 ) and India (1.8)" (find the link here: http://www.mnp.nl/en/service/pressreleases/2008/20080613ChinacontributingtwothirdstoincreaseinCO2emissions.html)
So, what is the population of China? Oh, around 1,350,000,000. So, if you do the math, 5.1 tons per person multiplied by 1.35 billion would be 6,885,000,000 tons of carbon per year.
And the population of the United States? Around 305,000,000. That's right, less than a quarter of China's. If you multiply in that whopping 19.4 tons per person, you get 5,917,000,000 tons of carbon per year.
We have a fraction of China's people, yet we're running a close second in total carbon emissions. Still don't think we're the biggest part of the problem? I've got some news for you: we as Americans need to change the way we live, both on a personal and public level. One part is to elect the right people and make the right policies (i.e. what Democrats are proposing -- clean energy, not just less dependence on foreign oil but less dependence on oil period, renewable technologies, etc.). The other part is personal choice: more fuel-efficient cars, less energy use at home, more efficient homes, investment in renewable and carbon-neutral energy, recycling, planting trees, protesting.... the list is enormous. It just takes some personal responsibility and a little elbow grease.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm always looking for interesting stuff from the world of progressive and environmental politics, and sometimes I post my findings here. Many people, I imagine, might find this stuff depressing, but I think that's mostly because the truth stings at first.
Move to Amend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(14)
-
▼
June
(10)
- Dirty Little Secrets: Oil and the War for Iraq
- China's #1!
- How is Al Gore not the President?
- The Current G.I. Bill
- Mind... Blown...
- John McCain and the Environment
- This is for the Ron Paul supporters...
- This is why Right-Wing Geologists are Stupid
- The Pope, The Environment...
- Gun Control: What You Should Know About It
-
▼
June
(10)
5 comments:
Glad to be your first commenter Spincerbuddy!
While your point on US per capita emissions is very sound, the reason people bring up China is because in America there is still a possibility to contain emissions. We have a full frontal media assault on global warming happening at all times. Maybe you missed Olberman and Costas' shit eating grins when they did Sunday Night Football in the dark? Don't worry, it was lame. The problem with China (and India) for that matter is that they've lived mostly in abject poverty for the entirety of the industrial age and are just now getting cars and other high emissions luxuries just now. And they're getting them at an extreme rate. So who gets to be the one to tell them that they can't live the good life anymore because we've already lived it all up? Don't bother looking for an answer, nobody's gonna tell 'em, and they're not listening anyway. Even if every car driving American goes out and builds themselves a magical wooden bicycle, there's still 3 billion people in a continent called Asia that have bigger fish to fry than our rich guilt. More to the point, what is their alternative? For insurance agents and classics majors, recycling, and voting for Obama may get the job done, but for a Chinese laborer or an Indian call center rep, there's just no substitute for having something to eat tonight.
Also you may want to reconsider the color scheme on this blog. I get it, you're green, but the page is burning my retinas.
Also, what's your take on Geo Engineering? If it's potential is even half of what is advertised it could be a (temporary, at least) proverbial "magic bullet." Not that I don't think protesting will save us all, just another idea to think about.
ygal, is that you?
Of course it's me douchesquirrel, love the blog, no new posts?
We should do a Left vs. Libertarian blog debate forum where we rip each other new ones (in debate) and let the accusations and innuendo fly. I'll start:
Yer a commie!
Your turn.
Ygal, you should know better -- you should know that I say these things not because of anything even closely resembling "rich guilt."
I'll admit that it is tremendously difficult to try to influence the energy policies of these 2 huge countries who are just now having their industrial revolutions. I was trying the whole "think global, act local" thing before I start buying up air time on late night Chinese cable access.
Again, I'll also say that, as a planet, we have all the technology we need to have a much smaller environmental impact. I understand that people need to eat -- unfortunately the planet's natural resources can only sustain about 70% of the world's population, and that number is only going to get worse. I do think it is still worthwhile to encourage Americans -- who consume food and everything else at a staggering rate -- to be aware of what they're doing, and to change their behaviors. "Rich guilt" isn't the correct label for someone who has already taken significant steps to reduce their impact and promote sustainability.
Post a Comment