HiloJulie - That being said, and with no doubt, the United States is on a per capita basis, a carbon emitting pig. It actually ranks 12th of all countries – per capita wise.
The other eleven countries above us are either major oil producing nations with small populations (e.g. Qatar, population 2.7 mil) or small populations with extraordinary high fossil fuel consumption (e.g. Luxembourg, population 653,000). So while yes the 2800 people of the Falkland Islands (#10 on the list) should do what they can to improve, their impact is going to be dwarfed by the larger population countries with similar per person fossil fuel consumption which are the US, Canada, and Australia.
HiloJulie - But that per capita measurement conveniently ignores that between China and India alone, which represents just under 3 billion of the world’s 8 billion people, chug out 14,000 million metric tons of CO2 a year compared to the US at 5,000 million metric tons with 330 million people.
It doesn't "conveniently" ignore anything, it provides a way of comparing groups with differing population sizes, which is what per capita measurements are for. But yes, China and India support 10x as many people on only 3x the US's emissions so there's your efficiency in action, I guess? Given that the US has contributed the most CO2
throughout history, China's current emissions include manufacturing much of the world's goods (we offshored our emissions essentially), and the fact that China deployed
more solar in 2023 than the US has in all of history, they seem to be making serious strides comparatively in addressing the issue.
HiloJulie - I am quite sure those 7 Brazilians or 18 Nicaraguans or 148 Madagascans would love to talk to you as well.
That'd be fine - I'd be happy to compare how our bananas and peppers are faring this year. I doubt they'd have a several thousand mile journey for entertainment to compare with yours for discussing?
HiloJulie - It's everybody's problem. It’s a world problem. A world made up of 195 countries.
Yep - you got an in with Xi? You pals with Modi? Have any influence at all with outcomes in those other 194 countries? Maybe focus on what you do have control over, first and foremost your own actions?
HiloJulie - As for the world population dilemma...
Hey, we can agree education is key! As woman gain more education, and access to birth control, they tend to
have fewer children. This is why many developed countries are now
below replacement rate and world population growth is
slowing. Hopefully this trend continues especially in Africa. However, the growth in consumption continues unabated.
HiloJulie - As for the world’s consumption dilemma, well, unfortunately, a lot of that problem falls on America, and fueled to huge proportions with what’s known as Amazon.
While the US is particularly egregious, it's unfortunately a widespread phenomenon, whether it's Amazon, Temu/PDD, Alibaba, etc... Convenience powered through cheap polluting fossil fuels. Be nice if people choose these options less, but seem unwilling to do so, so going to need incentives in the form of a carbon tax, as NASA scientist James Hansen has been
saying for decades.
HiloJulie - And to think, we have not even discussed how you feed 8 billion people. While having a nice vegetable garden in your backyard may work for some, it’s hardly the answer to the question.
Given that a total of ~
90 billion humans have survived on "backyard" gardens and farms in the times before fossil fuel powered agriculture, your take is highly ahistorical. There's ways to feed 10 billion concurrent people sustainably, but it means
less waste and fewer tractors and burgers, and better land management practices. For those with some depth in this area (looking at you HOTPE and kalianna if you're reading along), Jason Bradford's
The Future is Rural has some interesting ideas in it IMHO.
HiloJulie - ...here in America and several other advanced countries which has significantly lowered farm-based CO2 emissions. ... Their farm lands have been programmed into GPS satellites that from initial tilling, to seeding, to various applications of fertilizers etc., to combine harvest, the GPS controls the tractor ...
Um, making agriculture dependent on satellite networks isn't really moving away from fossil fuels, just adding more complexity and reducing resilience (sorry folks, no food this year, the tractor's forced software update went wrong...) All that complexity (steel equipment, automating software, satellite networks, synthetic fertilizers, etc) have energetic costs in their manufacture, operation, maintenance, etc, so saving some time and possibly money at the end point didn't happen for "free" and isn't sustainable (see
Joseph Tainter on the
Collapse of Complex Societies for more on the costs of complexity).
Farming is possible without fossil fuels (thanks to HOTPE and kalianna for sharing their practices - more on that later!) We've done it before and will need to do it again.
HiloJulie - Climate change is everybody’s issue. Your issue. My issue. Americas issue. The whole worlds issue. And, quite frankly, come this November, most likely will get even worse - for America that is. Take a look in that mirror!
The iron(y) makes me (y)ak sometimes...
