Sciencescience

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 11:34 PM

Who are the world's biggest polluters?

China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, according to the most recent data from the Global Carbon Project. China emits about 10,357 million metric tons per year.

China emits 29.51% of the world’s Fossil fuel CO2, twice as much as the 14.34% emitted by the United States. On a per capita basis, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qutar, Oman, and (get this) Turkmenistan emit more CO2 per capita than the United States, which is followed closely by Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan.

So, why isn’t the United Nations trying to hold China and India’s feet to the fire as much as they are harping on the United States?

Why don’t we hear how evil those countries are like we hear about the United States? Where is our liberal SAVE THE EARTH media on this? They are relative no shows.

Could it be our system of economics vs theirs?

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/who-are-the-worlds-biggest-polluters-idUSRTXRKSI

36 replies, 402 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Who are the world's biggest polluters? (Original post)
oflguy Aug 9 OP
rampartb Aug 9 #1
oflguy Aug 10 #2
Jack Burton Aug 10 #16
JaimeBondoJr Aug 10 #3
oflguy Aug 10 #4
JaimeBondoJr Aug 10 #5
oflguy Aug 10 #6
Cold Warrior Aug 10 #7
Solesurvivor Aug 10 #8
Cold Warrior Aug 10 #12
Solesurvivor Aug 10 #13
oflguy Aug 10 #9
SatansSon666 Aug 10 #10
oflguy Aug 10 #14
SatansSon666 Aug 10 #15
oflguy Aug 10 #17
oflguy Aug 11 #25
SatansSon666 Aug 11 #26
oflguy Aug 11 #29
SatansSon666 Aug 11 #30
oflguy Aug 11 #31
SatansSon666 Aug 11 #32
oflguy Aug 11 #33
SatansSon666 Aug 11 #34
oflguy Aug 11 #35
oflguy Aug 11 #36
Cold Warrior Aug 10 #11
oflguy Aug 10 #18
Cold Warrior Aug 11 #21
oflguy Aug 11 #22
Cold Warrior Aug 11 #23
oflguy Aug 11 #24
oflguy Aug 11 #27
oflguy Aug 10 #19
Cold Warrior Aug 11 #20
oflguy Aug 11 #28

Response to oflguy (Original post)

Thu Aug 9, 2018, 11:55 PM

1. On great! If the Chinese are doing it i can pollute as well

Us a needs to be #1! Usa usa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 12:00 AM

2. That is not the point of my post

The point is, why is the United Nations soft balling them?

A unit of CO2 is a unit of CO2 is a unit of CO2.

Is it not?

Is Chinese CO2 and other socialist countries CO2 somehow less harmful than US CO2?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 08:48 AM

16. But a USA produced CO2 unit has

hundreds of years of white male patriarchy in it.

Global warming is a hoax. The issue is never the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 12:23 AM

3. The UN has been an anti-US organization from its inception...

The biggest indicator of that was the makeup of the first "Security Council".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaimeBondoJr (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 12:30 AM

4. Why we don't kick them out of this country is a mystery to me

They are using up everybody's oxygen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 12:33 AM

5. I don't want to kick them out...

I want to ask them to leave first. Then kick them out of they refuse. Stick 'em in The Hague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaimeBondoJr (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 12:35 AM

6. I want to boot their sorry asses out immediately

Screw asking.

Then fumigate the slug slime trail they leave while leaving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 02:29 AM

7. Confused use of numbers and terminology

On one hand you use absolute numbers for China and the US and then you switch to a bunch of small population countries (all but one Islamic oddly) to look at per capita numbers. If you want to use per capita, why aren’t you consistent? What is the per capita for China v US. Oh wait, that doesn’t fit your narrative.

And your comment “our system of economics vs theirs.” Who’s “they?” China? Australia? India?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 04:09 AM

8. Why cant people answer the question?

Why isn’t china and India not pressured like the US since they’re the worst emitters of greenhouse gas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 04:59 AM

12. Did you even go to the OPs article?

India produces approximately half as much CO2 as the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 06:03 AM

13. Okay point taken, but China without a doubt produces more and they aren't as pressured

as the US, why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 04:09 AM

9. Too much information for you to process?

In the future, I'll try multiple posts, just for you.

"They" is the UN. That is not hard to figure out for most people.

So you want to compare China and the US on a per capita basis? Why? How much CO2 would you expect millions of Chinese that live like roaches in a shithole existence to use?

Does a lower per capita amount of CO2 in China tell you China is a better country than the US?

I notice you completely evaded the point of my thread, which is the UN's drastic difference in treatment of China and the US.

Do you consider their CO2 less of a problem too?

Is socialism CO2 not as bad as capitalism CO2?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 04:44 AM

10. Per capita the US contributes 4x the CO2

Than China does.
It does mean something.

So when you switch things around and use per capita instead of just tonnage your point is moot.

Sure China is bad. They should be held to the fire a bit, but don't pretend per capita doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 07:16 AM

14. "They should be held to the fire a bit"

You're such a trooper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 07:28 AM

15. Well, when you look at the numbers

Without switching between per capita and raw tonnage to make it look worse, yes.
Which is what you did.
Totally dishonest way to make your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 07:09 PM

17. Did it offend you when I pointed out that the majority of the world's man-made CO2 comes from China?

And that the UN is soft balling them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:37 AM

25. Well, did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:37 AM

26. Nah. I don't get offended over anything.

Nobody is arguing howuch China contributes.
It's the way you fuck with the numbers.
If you are going to make comparisons you should use the same comparisons.
If you use per capita to get one percentage and raw tonnage for another you are making a mathematical error. Like trying to use imperial and metric measurements in the same formula.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #26)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:13 AM

29. You are still evading the issue

Obviously, you don't care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #29)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:30 AM

30. I'm not evading it.

How do you get 1.4 billion people to use less fossil fuel energy compared to 324 million people, who use more per capita than them.
You expect them to stop using electricity?
The issue you are avoiding is your fucking with the numbers.

Is it completely out of your comprehension that maybe, just maybe, 4 times the amount of people will use more energy, thereby consuming more fuel and contributing more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?
Keep the references the same and there isn't a problem and it can be discussed. By using one reference in regards to tonnage and comparing it to per capita doesn't make sense mathematically. It could have simply been an error on your part or you knowingly did it to make your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:39 AM

31. There you go again, avoiding the point of my post

The UN is not treating China with the same standards they use on the US.

Do you think it is because they are a communist country? Is that why the UN is giving China a break?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:45 AM

32. Ask the UN.

You are avoiding your complete misinterpretation of the data to suit your means.

If a family of 5 uses 100 gallons of water a week and a family of 3 uses 90 gallons,
should we give the family of 5 shit about it?

There's 2 ways to look at it. Both can be discussed but you can't discuss it if you are making false comparisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #32)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:46 AM

33. Could this have something to do with it?

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."

"What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"

In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning free-market capitalism -- has caused environmental "wreckage."

This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a "crisis" to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 09:51 AM

34. Perhaps.

Still doesn't excuse your fucking with numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 10:06 AM

35. When the United Nations holds China and India accountable

Come back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 10:12 AM

36. Perhaps?

Your communist agenda is noted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 04:56 AM

11. Hardly



First, since the environmental impact is based on the total amount of CO2 produced, I’m all for using the absolute numbers. And from your source, China produces around twice the amount of the US and the US produces about twice as much as India. Fine.

But I’m then at a loss as to why YOU, not me, switch per capita numbers. Why? To show that Oman with approximately 1% of the US population size, produces more CO2 per capita than the US. Face it, the whole structure of your post is to make the US look good in regard to this. Bringing out China’s absolute numbers, ignoring the US’, and oddly bringing India in without noting the numbers. YOU then bring in per capita to show the US is better than some extremely low population countries.

I have no problem with calling out China in this regard. What I do have a problem with is disingenuous arguments that try to deceitfully mask reality.

As to the “they,” no it didn’t occur to me that you were referring to the UN. Since the discussion was about countries, of which the UN is not one, I actually thought you were referring to China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 07:25 PM

18. Should per capita statistics be abolished?

since they are meaningless?

You certainly used them to make points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #18)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 03:42 AM

21. Yeah, let's abolish the use of per capita values in statistics



The question is not the validity of using a per capita value but rather the validity of an argument that uses both a cumulative ranking and a per capita one simultaneously. If we use the cumlative ranking we get:

1. China
2. The United States
3. India

With each cumlative value for CO2 emissions being approximately twice the previous one.

Since you don’t provide a citation for your per capita ranking and I’m too lazy to google it, I’ll simply illustrate the relative per capita values of the three. If we normalise the US to “1” we can say that relative to that:

1. China is 0,5 given twice the pollution and four times the population of the US and
2. India is 0.125 given half the pollution and four times the population of the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:29 AM

22. Yes, quoting the two types of facts in the same post was a big mistake on my part.

I realize that now. I already said, for your benefit, I will separate the two kinds of information into different posts in the future so as not to confuse you.

I can't apologize enough for the grave confusion I caused you.

But you still have evaded discussion on the point of my post which is the fact that China produces the most CO2 in the world, yet the UN soft-balls them relative to the way they treat the US, which has cut back to half the amount China produces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #22)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:33 AM

23. Again, you're not confusing anyone

Your purpose in mixing of the two types of statistics was apparent to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #23)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:35 AM

24. You are still evading the issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:39 AM

27. Wait, you just mixed total CO2 and per capita data in the same post

Is it ok to do now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 10, 2018, 07:59 PM

19. Per Capita means the total amount of CO2 produced divided by the number of people in the country

It is a representation of the average amount used per person in the country.

Total CO2 produced means the total amount of CO2 produced in the country.

I know it can be confusing to some people, so in the future I will explain this in the top post when I use the terms per capita and total.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 03:28 AM

20. Jeez, get over yourself

Everyone here knows the difference between using a cumulative value and a per capita value as well as how to calculate per capita (did you look that up all on your own). Everyone here also knows that when you start with a cumlative ranking and, in the middle shift to a per capita ranking, to be suspicious of your argument and your agenda. There’s a book by Darrell Huff written all the way back in 1954 you might want to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #20)

Sat Aug 11, 2018, 08:47 AM

28. Just trying to avoid confusing you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience