Normal Island

[mudsticks]

I agree. China isn't on the top 40 per capita carbon burners and shouldn't get singled out because of their population size.

It would be useful to have diachronic figures that show which countries are climbing fastest up the death ladder. But I don't have those. I would like to know, though.

Besides, it's going to be the "jet setting" group that pollutes the most, regardless of their nationality.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-rele...t-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

Yup its the richest, who are dirtiest, of whichever nationality.

But it's extractive and exploitive industries such as oil corporations (which do make some people very rich) that are driving it all too.

 

[matticus]

The concept of tackling the worst polluters to get the best short term results seems to me a simple one.

There are very many simple wrong concepts out there.

At least no one has bellowed 'racist' at @BoldonLad, so I suppose that's some progress from sub-CSE towards O level.

Indeedy!

 

[matticus]

A very clear graphic that illustrates Madam Mudders' point:

I very much doubt that anyone posting here is NOT in that top band.

But the world being complex ... we owe it to each-other to coerce* the wealthy and corrupt; that's politicians like Sunak rolling in oli-money, the bosses and shareholders in oil companies, and the dirty wasteful aviation users (which also includes a lot of Sunaks. He's in my head, help!!!!)

*I say "coerce"... really they need to be first against the wall when the revolu ....

 

[mudsticks]

A very clear graphic that illustrates Madam Mudders' point:
View attachment 4378

I very much doubt that anyone posting here is NOT in that top band.

But the world being complex ... we owe it to each-other to coerce* the wealthy and corrupt; that's politicians like Sunak rolling in oli-money, the bosses and shareholders in oil companies, and the dirty wasteful aviation users (which also includes a lot of Sunaks. He's in my head, help!!!!)

*I say "coerce"... really they need to be first against the wall when the revolu ....

I'm trying to sequester as much carbon as possible via land management, and ecosystem preservation practices, whilst providing lots of healthful food with very little wastage and low carbon delivery model.
I pass on the knowledge gained on how all this works as much as I can.

Don't fly, drive barely, only buy green leccy, shop minimally and consciously, etc etc.

But this is a carefully constructed lifestyle in an environment that is pretty hostile to (and in fact often ridicules) such attempts.

Thing is it shouldn't have to be so difficult to live like this, it could be 'normal' not remarkable, it's not sack cloth and ashes, in fact it's for the most part very joyful, fun even.

So individual actions are important, if they can model different ways of doing and being, and show that people care.

But top down political action to make a 'greener' low carbon lifestyle the default is what's needed.

Permitting new drilling in the North Sea is a wholly irresponsible action by our government.

There are a myriad of things they could be doing to invest in and facilitate a just transition. So everyone could live better.

But that wouldn't necessarily make them or their cronies oodles of cash, would it??

 

[BoldonLad]

A very clear graphic that illustrates Madam Mudders' point:
View attachment 4378

I very much doubt that anyone posting here is NOT in that top band.

But the world being complex ... we owe it to each-other to coerce* the wealthy and corrupt; that's politicians like Sunak rolling in oli-money, the bosses and shareholders in oil companies, and the dirty wasteful aviation users (which also includes a lot of Sunaks. He's in my head, help!!!!)

*I say "coerce"... really they need to be first against the wall when the revolu ....

What does "life style emissions" mean?

Are "life style emissions" the most significant proportion of emissions?

 

[Deleted member 28]

What does "life style emissions" mean?

She doesn't fart, although theres enough 'gas ' coming out the other end.

 

[matticus]

What does "life style emissions" mean?

Are "life style emissions" the most significant proportion of emissions?

I didn't compile the numbers!
Google some other data; if you find something contradicting our conclusions (about the dirty wealthy) - or indeed any other interesting nuggets - do come back to us and we can discuss.

How's that sound?

p.s. just found another simpler graphic. It's not as much fun, but has less confusing words:

 

[mudsticks]

I didn't compile the numbers!
Google some other data; if you find something contradicting our conclusions (about the dirty wealthy) - or indeed any other interesting nuggets - do come back to us and we can discuss.

How's that sound?

p.s. just found another simpler graphic. It's not as much fun, but has less confusing words:

Don't be silly that would involve research, and brain engagement..

Far too large an ask for some on here.

 

[BoldonLad]

I didn't compile the numbers!
Google some other data; if you find something contradicting our conclusions (about the dirty wealthy) - or indeed any other interesting nuggets - do come back to us and we can discuss.

How's that sound?

p.s. just found another simpler graphic. It's not as much fun, but has less confusing words:

I wasn’t doubting your numbers, but, never mind just keep banging the drum.

I was simply pointing out that, logically, if you want to make a major impact on emissions, you go for the big emitters first, whoever they are. I didn’t advocate ignoring the other emitters.

Assuming the figures you presented are correct (and I am not disputing them), reducing the emissions of the top 10% by (say) 25% would reduce WORLD WIDE emissions by 12.5% (quite an achievement in my view).

I notice that we have now switched the terminology to “dirty”, instead of “emissions”.

 

[matticus]

I was simply pointing out that, logically, if you want to make a major impact on emissions, you go for the big emitters first, whoever they are. I didn’t advocate ignoring the other emitters.

... or you could limit their supply. Would you be happy with that?

 

[Ian H]

I wasn’t doubting your numbers, but, never mind just keep banging the drum.

I was simply pointing out that, logically, if you want to make a major impact on emissions, you go for the big emitters first, whoever they are. I didn’t advocate ignoring the other emitters.

Targetting 'big emitters' by country means targetting populations who, as individuals, may already be less polluting than individuals in smaller countries. So you're holding them to higher standards simply because they live in a large country. Example: China's population already emits far less CO2 per person than any of the Gulf states. How is that fair?

 

[BoldonLad]

... or you could limit their supply. Would you be happy with that?

Their supply of what?, air perhaps, that would cut emissions even more

 

[BoldonLad]

Targetting 'big emitters' by country means targetting populations who, as individuals, may already be less polluting than individuals in smaller countries. So you're holding them to higher standards simply because they live in a large country. Example: China's population already emits far less CO2 per person than any of the Gulf states. How is that fair?

I wasn’t discussing “fair”, I was discussing “effective”.

 

[matticus]

Their supply of what?, air perhaps, that would cut emissions even more

Do you actually know what fossil fuels are??

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you actually know what fossil fuels are??

Do you know what people breathe?, and the result of depriving them of it? On your figures, that would cut emissions by 49%, a result I would say. But, it was a joke. 😊