Do the climate models show a different outcome if the per person amount changes, but not the total?
total CO2 = (per person CO2) x (# of people)
How could they?
Unless you want to remove people, the only way is to have people use less.
It's not magic, just simple logic.
Should even be common sense...but that is quite lacking around here.
PS: Notice in the equation there is no need to mention countries, where the people are makes no difference. The only use for comparing countries is to find out where the high (per person CO2) is. So you know who has the most to cut. Which people are causing the biggest part of the problem.
In before some idiot claims businesses make CO2 and not people. No, the same way businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to the consumers. Businesses only make CO2 in order to supply good and services to people.
It doesn't have to be the biggest to make a meaningful difference.
That would be the strawman.
If America dropped 18% of their CO2, half of them would probably wet themselves in excitement.
I think a certain someones arm would break off from patting himself on the back so hard.
America could remove all AC and go back to developing countries standards in that area and save a lot of CO2. But of course they won't.
I wouldn't expect them to. What I don't see as fair though, is complaining about developing countries starting to have AC like them and emitting the CO2 like they do. If it's ok for them, why not everyone else?
Last bit isn't directly aimed at you.
But Windy's troll army will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. (without actually explaining why they are more entitled)
The only people who scream about cutting CO2 are the ones like you. The very same people who continue per person to emit much more than either Europe or China.
You "dropped your coal", but like I showed you hereyou still use more of it per person than the Chinese person you are complaining about.
Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
30% of 3 is 0.9
69% of 1 is 0.69
You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
Despite your drop and their increase, you still use more.
Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption.
So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
What makes you say that? 18% is a pretty significant amount. And thats in power hungry America.
EIA estimates that 18% of annual household electricity use is for air conditioning.
Just have a look here to see what the experts predict.
So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
It was an example of growing wealth causing a growing use of electricity (and consumption in general) It was also directly in resopnse to Windy's post about AC sales.
How on earth is that a strawman?
If some asshole from any of those countries claimed they were doing a good job, while calling me a liar, I probably would.
You wan't to point out those countries are good for the environment? I'll gladly tell you you are wrong.
If your feelings are so easily hurt by me singling your country out, you are free to include your friends. Every time I mention America you can pretend I said those countries too, add in Australia and Canada if you like. Wouldn't want you to feel excluded.
Total emissions = per person emissions x number of people
Funny how that works isn't it.
Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
30% of 3 is 0.9
69% of 1 is 0.69
You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
Maybe you need a remedial math class.
After you learn what 'per person' means.
Where in those numbers does it show how much electricity they used?
Oh it doesn't does it.
More pointless trolling from the hidden WindBourne army.
See here to understand why usage is the important factor here.
Who am I kidding, you are probably incapable of understanding. Anyone who disagrees with you or points out your errors is a Russian troll? Grow up.
If I'm trying to discredit and bash the US and uphold China, then why is the only person I have a problem with, the one person who falsely accuses me of lying all the time? Your claim doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
If you were man enough to log in, and someone baselessly called you a liar in every second post, don't you think you would try to point out they were wrong? Wouldn't you also want to show that they are the liar and not you?
1) It's already happening
2) You are right. New efficient ones that Asians are buying will be better that most of the old ones other countries use. And that will help them stay under the electricity usage of 'those countries'. Still even the most efficient AC isn't going to be more efficient than 'being too poor to afford an AC'.
Do you know what's more green than buying an EV. 'not buying a car'.
Per capita China is much better at 'not buying a car' than you, most of Europe probably is too.
International Energy Agency: while top exporters Qatar and Australia will remain formidable competitors, the U.S. could be the largest LNG exporter by 2025 if new projects achieve their final investment decision over the next two years.
Yes gas isn't as bad as coal, but it's no wind or solar.
I wonder who exports the most wind and solar...?
Anyone building hydro or nukes in other countries...?
Again random AC's are me.
Again you accuse me of lying with no evidence whatsoever.
When will you learn Windy?
You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time.
You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
Facts are facts Windy, China's % of renewable electricity is much much higher than America's.25% vs 14%. Per capita you might be growing faster. But your electricity use is also much much higher. So your electricity still makes more CO2 per person than China's.
Simple example of why what you claim is good is actually meaningless.
Country A installs 1 unit of solar electricity capacity per person.
Country B installs 3 units of solar electricity capacity per person.
Which is greener?
Which produces the most CO2?
Thats right, there is no way to tell without also knowing how much electricity the 2 countries use.
Country A uses 1 unit of electricity per person.
Country B uses 6 units of electricity per person.
Country A produces zero CO2
Country B produces 3 units worth of CO2
America is country B in this example...
Same for cars btw. Per person you may buy more electric cars, but you buy twice as many cars. As a percentage of cars you are worse than China.
The other cars are the problem, just like the other electricity is what causes the CO2.
(Tap out Windy, the logic just isn't with you.)
You can't be at all serious.
So allow me to respond in kind.
You are right, it's not like Chinese carry around a bag with 7.5 t of CO2 in it and Americans carry around a bag with 15 t of CO2. It all gets mixed together.
You want China to cut back to American levels. Fine, good target, saves the world 5 million kt of CO2.
Well one efficient way would be to kill off 1/2 their population.
Killing 700 million Chinese will save 5 million kt of CO2 from being emitted.
But wait, if the goal is to reduce CO2 by 5 million kt. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just kill 330 million Americans instead?
Far more humane.
I wouldn't.
But that's exactly what Windy expects Chinese people to do. He wants to send 100's of millions of Chinese people back there. All so he can keep his nice things.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the Trump voter putting up trade barriers against the whole world...
Do the climate models show a different outcome if the per person amount changes, but not the total?
total CO2 = (per person CO2) x (# of people)
How could they?
Unless you want to remove people, the only way is to have people use less.
It's not magic, just simple logic.
Should even be common sense...but that is quite lacking around here.
PS: Notice in the equation there is no need to mention countries, where the people are makes no difference. The only use for comparing countries is to find out where the high (per person CO2) is. So you know who has the most to cut. Which people are causing the biggest part of the problem.
In before some idiot claims businesses make CO2 and not people. No, the same way businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to the consumers. Businesses only make CO2 in order to supply good and services to people.
Yes, I agree with you. Hopefully they do all those things.
Still it's hard to go below zero, which is what a hell of a lot of people currently use...
It doesn't have to be the biggest to make a meaningful difference.
That would be the strawman.
If America dropped 18% of their CO2, half of them would probably wet themselves in excitement.
I think a certain someones arm would break off from patting himself on the back so hard.
America could remove all AC and go back to developing countries standards in that area and save a lot of CO2. But of course they won't.
I wouldn't expect them to. What I don't see as fair though, is complaining about developing countries starting to have AC like them and emitting the CO2 like they do. If it's ok for them, why not everyone else?
Last bit isn't directly aimed at you.
But Windy's troll army will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. (without actually explaining why they are more entitled)
1 person puts 1 liter in.
2 people put 1/2 a liter in each.
You have 1 bullet. Which of the 3 do you shoot?
If EV's take off in a big way like expected. Who in their right mind thinks the charging network won't also grow?
The only people who scream about cutting CO2 are the ones like you. The very same people who continue per person to emit much more than either Europe or China.
several class action lawsuits
Those things take years. Tesla will either be very profitable by then, or sold to a competitor. It won't make a difference either way.
Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
30% of 3 is 0.9
69% of 1 is 0.69
You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
Despite your drop and their increase, you still use more.
They did do nothing.
Ahh now I get it.
The people living in the hottest places on the planet are the least likely to have air conditioners
Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption.
So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
What makes you say that? 18% is a pretty significant amount. And thats in power hungry America.
EIA estimates that 18% of annual household electricity use is for air conditioning.
Just have a look here to see what the experts predict.
So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
It was an example of growing wealth causing a growing use of electricity (and consumption in general)
It was also directly in resopnse to Windy's post about AC sales.
How on earth is that a strawman?
Yes. You don't need to tell me that. Tell WindBourne, he's the one who doesn't realise.
If some asshole from any of those countries claimed they were doing a good job, while calling me a liar, I probably would.
You wan't to point out those countries are good for the environment? I'll gladly tell you you are wrong.
If your feelings are so easily hurt by me singling your country out, you are free to include your friends. Every time I mention America you can pretend I said those countries too, add in Australia and Canada if you like. Wouldn't want you to feel excluded.
Total emissions = per person emissions x number of people
Funny how that works isn't it.
Trump did that too did he. No wonder the coal people love him.
With over 4x as many people.
Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
30% of 3 is 0.9
69% of 1 is 0.69
You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
Maybe you need a remedial math class.
After you learn what 'per person' means.
Where in those numbers does it show how much electricity they used?
Oh it doesn't does it.
More pointless trolling from the hidden WindBourne army. See here to understand why usage is the important factor here.
Who am I kidding, you are probably incapable of understanding. Anyone who disagrees with you or points out your errors is a Russian troll? Grow up.
If I'm trying to discredit and bash the US and uphold China, then why is the only person I have a problem with, the one person who falsely accuses me of lying all the time? Your claim doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
If you were man enough to log in, and someone baselessly called you a liar in every second post, don't you think you would try to point out they were wrong? Wouldn't you also want to show that they are the liar and not you?
1) It's already happening
2) You are right. New efficient ones that Asians are buying will be better that most of the old ones other countries use. And that will help them stay under the electricity usage of 'those countries'. Still even the most efficient AC isn't going to be more efficient than 'being too poor to afford an AC'.
Do you know what's more green than buying an EV. 'not buying a car'.
Per capita China is much better at 'not buying a car' than you, most of Europe probably is too.
America also exports a lot of gas.
International Energy Agency: while top exporters Qatar and Australia will remain formidable competitors, the U.S. could be the largest LNG exporter by 2025 if new projects achieve their final investment decision over the next two years.
Yes gas isn't as bad as coal, but it's no wind or solar.
I wonder who exports the most wind and solar...?
Anyone building hydro or nukes in other countries...?
Again you accuse me of lying with no evidence whatsoever.
When will you learn Windy?
You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.
What evidence do you have that China is 9.
Facts are facts Windy, China's % of renewable electricity is much much higher than America's.25% vs 14%. Per capita you might be growing faster. But your electricity use is also much much higher. So your electricity still makes more CO2 per person than China's.
Simple example of why what you claim is good is actually meaningless.
Country A installs 1 unit of solar electricity capacity per person.
Country B installs 3 units of solar electricity capacity per person.
Which is greener?
Which produces the most CO2?
Thats right, there is no way to tell without also knowing how much electricity the 2 countries use.
Country A uses 1 unit of electricity per person.
Country B uses 6 units of electricity per person.
Country A produces zero CO2
Country B produces 3 units worth of CO2
America is country B in this example...
Same for cars btw. Per person you may buy more electric cars, but you buy twice as many cars. As a percentage of cars you are worse than China.
The other cars are the problem, just like the other electricity is what causes the CO2.
(Tap out Windy, the logic just isn't with you.)
You can't be at all serious.
So allow me to respond in kind.
You are right, it's not like Chinese carry around a bag with 7.5 t of CO2 in it and Americans carry around a bag with 15 t of CO2. It all gets mixed together.
You want China to cut back to American levels. Fine, good target, saves the world 5 million kt of CO2.
Well one efficient way would be to kill off 1/2 their population.
Killing 700 million Chinese will save 5 million kt of CO2 from being emitted.
But wait, if the goal is to reduce CO2 by 5 million kt. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just kill 330 million Americans instead?
Far more humane.
I wouldn't.
But that's exactly what Windy expects Chinese people to do. He wants to send 100's of millions of Chinese people back there. All so he can keep his nice things.