Saying "well China are doing it, so no point us changing" is like Mrs Southall justifying her loved-one's actions by pointing at Nimer. Don't approve of their actions, but our attitudes to the planet have to shift.
Yeah. "But Chiiinaaaa" is weaksauce and I see it every time the need for reduced emissions is raised now.
4,000 tons imported from China in 2018 and 7,000 tons imported in 2019.
North China's Inner Mongolia region has told more than 70 mines to boost annual output capacity by nearly 100 million tonnes, according to the Reuters news agency, citing a government official and coal traders.
The area is the country's second-largest producer of coal.
The proposed increase in output of 100 million tonnes would amount to almost 3% of China's total annual thermal coal consumption.
So China's annual output of coal mining is 3.3 billion tons, whilst we ban the use of domestic coal in May 2023.
Yeah. "But Chiiinaaaa" is weaksauce and I see it every time the need for reduced emissions is raised now.
4,000 tons imported from China in 2018 and 7,000 tons imported in 2019.
North China's Inner Mongolia region has told more than 70 mines to boost annual output capacity by nearly 100 million tonnes, according to the Reuters news agency, citing a government official and coal traders.
The area is the country's second-largest producer of coal.
The proposed increase in output of 100 million tonnes would amount to almost 3% of China's total annual thermal coal consumption.
So China's annual output of coal mining is 3.3 billion tons, whilst we ban the use of domestic coal in May 2023.
Yeah. "But Chiiinaaaa" is weaksauce and I see it every time the need for reduced emissions is raised now.
4,000 tons imported from China in 2018 and 7,000 tons imported in 2019.
North China's Inner Mongolia region has told more than 70 mines to boost annual output capacity by nearly 100 million tonnes, according to the Reuters news agency, citing a government official and coal traders.
The area is the country's second-largest producer of coal.
The proposed increase in output of 100 million tonnes would amount to almost 3% of China's total annual thermal coal consumption.
So China's annual output of coal mining is 3.3 billion tons, whilst we ban the use of domestic coal in May 2023.
Yes, to make our crap. We need to lower the demand by consuming less. China is a red herring.
So their emissions are a result of fulfilling our demand for crap (a UK population of 67 million) rather than overwhelmingly supporting their own domestic demand (a population of 1.4 billion)?
Yeah. "But Chiiinaaaa" is weaksauce and I see it every time the need for reduced emissions is raised now.
4,000 tons imported from China in 2018 and 7,000 tons imported in 2019.
North China's Inner Mongolia region has told more than 70 mines to boost annual output capacity by nearly 100 million tonnes, according to the Reuters news agency, citing a government official and coal traders.
The area is the country's second-largest producer of coal.
The proposed increase in output of 100 million tonnes would amount to almost 3% of China's total annual thermal coal consumption.
So China's annual output of coal mining is 3.3 billion tons, whilst we ban the use of domestic coal in May 2023.
Pull all the stops out to justify everyone else's ridiculously high footprint, but split hairs and ponder over every intrinsic detail of the UK's relatively small footprint, that the UK, incidentally, has fully acknowledged and is already trying to reduce.
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I know you're joking but do just want to address the point on time lines. People often assume the impacts of this are multiple generations away. They're wrong. The impacts of this will be felt around the world within a decade. Estimates are that people will be dying in their millions as a direct result of climate change within 10 years. The ensuing mass migration on a scale the world has never seen before will likely threaten our way of life.
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I know you're joking but do just want to address the point on time lines. People often assume the impacts of this are multiple generations away. They're wrong. The impacts of this will be felt around the world within a decade. Estimates are that people will be dying in their millions as a direct result of climate change within 10 years. The ensuing mass migration on a scale the world has never seen before will likely threaten our way of life.
Don't be complacent about this.
10 years Canters? Are we not then already to save them millions in the next 10 years?
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
I know you're joking but do just want to address the point on time lines. People often assume the impacts of this are multiple generations away. They're wrong. The impacts of this will be felt around the world within a decade. Estimates are that people will be dying in their millions as a direct result of climate change within 10 years. The ensuing mass migration on a scale the world has never seen before will likely threaten our way of life.
Don't be complacent about this.
10 years Canters? Are we not then already to save them millions in the next 10 years?
Some studies have argued that its already happening. That climate change is killing subsitence farmers in Africa in huge numbers and affecting Asia too. Its pretty hard to directly attribute those to climate change but its not long before that will clearly be the case.
Have to hope it's not too late. Otherwise it would all be far too depressing
Climate has always killed millions. The 1983 - 85 Ethiopian famine, where continuous drought was a major contributing factor (alongside other geopolitical factors) is reckoned to have killed 1.2 million.
The WHO states:- Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
Here's a longer term provocation published in Forbes:-
“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.
“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
You're kidding aren't you? Everyone who is paying any attention at all to this knows the USA and Australia are the worst offenders along with a few middle Eastern countries. I'll admit that Canada seems to get away with it.
I heard a woman on the wireless saying that the UK outsources it’s use of fossil fuel to China. The argument being all the stuff we want to buy (on the cheap) is made in China for us, and they need power to manufacture what we consume.
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Maybe China is pumping out the shit that New Zealand would pump out if they didn't get China to do it for them. Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution. If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant. Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
You're kidding aren't you? Everyone who is paying any attention at all to this knows the USA and Australia are the worst offenders along with a few middle Eastern countries. I'll admit that Canada seems to get away with it.
Those countries don't seem to get cited negatively on a thread like this as much as China does.
I heard a woman on the wireless saying that the UK outsources it’s use of fossil fuel to China. The argument being all the stuff we want to buy (on the cheap) is made in China for us, and they need power to manufacture what we consume.
I thought it would all be "our" fault somehow!
The man defends China but criticises the UK at every opportunity. Predictable.
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
You're kidding aren't you? Everyone who is paying any attention at all to this knows the USA and Australia are the worst offenders along with a few middle Eastern countries. I'll admit that Canada seems to get away with it.
Those countries don't seem to get cited negatively on a thread like this as much as China does.
Yes, because this thread is really representative of the global conversation about climate change.
The reason why people are worried about China is that emission are continuing to rise there (the Government's plan is to peak in 2030) while in other countries they are declining, even the USA under Trump, though nowhere near fast enough.
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Maybe China is pumping out the shit that New Zealand would pump out if they didn't get China to do it for them. Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution. If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant. Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
Absolutely.
But you were the one talking about pollution per capita and I was just pointing out why that metric was flawed by using the example of a population increase in the country with the highest emissions as an example of why it was flawed.
As for the "we get China to do it for us" argument, is that for real? You're blaming "us" - whoever that is supposed to refer to - for the fact that the Chinese used cheap labour to undercut established manufacturing industries around the globe for their own benefit? That's "OUR" fault?
Comments
Don't approve of their actions, but our attitudes to the planet have to shift.
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
Don't be complacent about this.
10 years Canters?
Are we not then already to save them millions in the next 10 years?
Have to hope it's not too late. Otherwise it would all be far too depressing
The WHO states:-
Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
Here's a longer term provocation published in Forbes:-
“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.
“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution.
If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
But you were the one talking about pollution per capita and I was just pointing out why that metric was flawed by using the example of a population increase in the country with the highest emissions as an example of why it was flawed.
As for the "we get China to do it for us" argument, is that for real? You're blaming "us" - whoever that is supposed to refer to - for the fact that the Chinese used cheap labour to undercut established manufacturing industries around the globe for their own benefit? That's "OUR" fault?