BF2S Forums China, No.1 Polluter

M.O.A.B wrote:

In a sense it clearly shows that no matter what the circumstances, people are just going to blame the US for everything. Per capita in the US maybe be more but it still amounts to less than China's overall so no matter what way you cut it, China is the worst polluter.

Well no - I wouldn't say "no matter how you cut it".  I mean - that's the thing about statistics ... it's ALL in how you cut it.  There are 3 different ways to compute an average at least.  So it's just as accurate to say China is the worst polluter as it is to say the USA is the worst polluter.  Personally, I would put more stock in a per capita figure (assuming it's done correctly) than a gross number because there IS something to be said for evaluating a system (per capita) vs simply a function of mass populous.

Kmarion wrote:

The real question. Who is working harder to fix it?

absolutely, and not working like spreading the food out on your plate and saying "DONE!" working but like actually working in earnest.

Last edited by PuckMercury (2008-04-15 10:10:09)

M.O.A.B wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't think Mother Nature gives a damn whether it's per capita or not...just the volume produced. It's the "blame the US/West" crowd that makes the distinction.

Ok, lets split China into two seperate countries, China A and China B. Now each China has half of the pollution output of the original China. Does that mean we've taken a major step in saving the environment? If you think that would be a major achievement in reducing pollution then per capita doesn't matter, if you think that would be completely irrelevant then per capita figures matter. To put it another way, if we are going to ignore per capita outputs, then we should work out how much pollution that humanity as a whole can acceptably put out then divide that amount by the number of countries on the planet, because apparently it's not relevant how many people live in the country. Enjoy trying to survive with the same total emissions as Palau.

I'm simply pointing out how
a) nothing was posted up in the forum section about this even though its big news.
b) it seems to draw little attention to it as its China rather than the US

In a sense it clearly shows that no matter what the circumstances, people are just going to blame the US for everything. Per capita in the US maybe be more but it still amounts to less than China's overall so no matter what way you cut it, China is the worst polluter.

It's not big news because the stat is fairly irrelevant due to the per capita figure being the sensible figure to use, afterall, mother nature doesn't care where the borders of countries are. It's the same reason why people don't compair things like total homicides committed in the US and the UK, the figure is highly distorted due to the far larger number of people living in the US. The only thing you really learn about the total pollution output figure is that China is a huge place as is the USA.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

So wait a second, even though China now overall produces more pollution than anyone else, the west and US is still allowed to be criticised just because we pollute more per capita? This is splitting hairs now tbh.

I'm starting to see why this wasn't posted up earlier, because it has nothing to do with the US being criticised

I don't think Mother Nature gives a damn whether it's per capita or not...just the volume produced. It's the "blame the US/West" crowd that makes the distinction.

Ok, lets split China into two seperate countries, China A and China B. Now each China has half of the pollution output of the original China. Does that mean we've taken a major step in saving the environment? If you think that would be a major achievement in reducing pollution then per capita doesn't matter, if you think that would be completely irrelevant then per capita figures matter. To put it another way, if we are going to ignore per capita outputs, then we should work out how much pollution that humanity as a whole can acceptably put out then divide that amount by the number of countries on the planet, because apparently it's not relevant how many people live in the country. Enjoy trying to survive with the same total emissions as Palau.

You've completely missed the point.

Per capita is irrelevant. The total amount of pollutants being put into the environment is all that matters. Period.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't think Mother Nature gives a damn whether it's per capita or not...just the volume produced. It's the "blame the US/West" crowd that makes the distinction.

Ok, lets split China into two seperate countries, China A and China B. Now each China has half of the pollution output of the original China. Does that mean we've taken a major step in saving the environment? If you think that would be a major achievement in reducing pollution then per capita doesn't matter, if you think that would be completely irrelevant then per capita figures matter. To put it another way, if we are going to ignore per capita outputs, then we should work out how much pollution that humanity as a whole can acceptably put out then divide that amount by the number of countries on the planet, because apparently it's not relevant how many people live in the country. Enjoy trying to survive with the same total emissions as Palau.

You've completely missed the point.

Per capita is irrelevant. The total amount of pollutants being put into the environment is all that matters. Period.

Yes I agree, the total amount of pollutants put out by humanity is what's important, so lets look at which individual people in the world are responsable for putting out the most pollution. Which people are making the most pollution? As it turns out it is westerners that are putting out the most pollution. The fact that China is one big country and not lots of smaller countries makes no difference whatsoever to anything. Hence the fact that China as a whole puts out more pollution than the US as a whole is irrelevant, what matters is how much pollution people in China are putting out per person compaired to people in the US.

As I said, if China was two countries then each country would have half the total pollution output and the US would be the biggest polluter in the world. Defining who's the biggest polluter by a country's total pollution output is clearly stupid as it's massively dependent on the history of the region which their borders depend on which has nothing to do with pollution.

Why is it that Americans only care about the environment when it's China that needs to cut down. I've noticed that alot on BF2s, when you get topics about the environment, the Americans usually defend their need to not be green, and say it's all an Al Gore Conspiracy and dismiss the posters as Hippies. But as soon as a China thread comes, they're all "omg they should cut down, they're ruining the environment!!"

I mean seriously, alot of people from the UK do it too...

This place is stupid.

Also, the USA is not #1 per capita, but it's alot more than China

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-04-15 11:25:54)

These were from 2004: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx

Bahrain
Aruba
Brunei Darussalam
Canada (Virtually identical)
Kuwait (waaayyy more)
Luxembourg (to support that high GDP no doubt)
Norway (virtually identical)
Russia (Way More)
Qatar (More than 3x's the United States)



I think Australia has passed per capita as well.
I'll look.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

These were from 2004: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx

Bahrain
Aruba
Brunei Darussalam
Canada (Virtually identical)
Kuwait (waaayyy more)
Luxembourg (to support that high GDP no doubt)
Norway (virtually identical)
Russia (Way More)
Qatar (More than 3x's the United States)



I think Australia has passed per capita as well.
I'll look.

I found these two:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_p … per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c … per-capita

Your going the wrong way.. I'm looking for more recent.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I found these two:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_p … per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c … per-capita

Your going the wrong way.. I'm looking for more recent.

This is interesting. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … per_capita

It shows you the emissions per capita from 1990 to 2004 and the US is #10.

And this one is from 2004 and it ranks USA #1.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nationa … per_capita

That's what I pulled from. Look at the source at wiki and my link.

sergeriver wrote:

And this one is from 2004 and it ranks USA #1.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nationa … per_capita

World Bank, online database, 2004 ?

Dude... that's not even close to anything else.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You've completely missed the point.

Per capita is irrelevant. The total amount of pollutants being put into the environment is all that matters. Period.

Yes I agree, the total amount of pollutants put out by humanity is what's important, so lets look at which individual people in the world are responsable for putting out the most pollution. Which people are making the most pollution? As it turns out it is westerners that are putting out the most pollution. The fact that China is one big country and not lots of smaller countries makes no difference whatsoever to anything. Hence the fact that China as a whole puts out more pollution than the US as a whole is irrelevant, what matters is how much pollution people in China are putting out per person compaired to people in the US.

As I said, if China was two countries then each country would have half the total pollution output and the US would be the biggest polluter in the world. Defining who's the biggest polluter by a country's total pollution output is clearly stupid as it's massively dependent on the history of the region which their borders depend on which has nothing to do with pollution.

Per capita is just public dick measuring. What's important is how much a given country is emitting, regardless of population and what actions that country is taking to reduce their emissions.

And if you want to measure the actual number of polluters in a country and use that as the population used to derive the per capita number, China will likely exceed the US (and most other nations) per capita...with India right behind China. The majority of the polluting poplulation lives in the urban areas of both countries, while the majority of the population (as a whole) is rural and pollutes far less. That is yet another reason why broad-brush "per capita" calculations are irrelevant.

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That's what I pulled from. Look at the source at wiki and my link.

When I open your link there's no chart or data.

You have to select what you want to see. I could not direct link to the output..

Well, but it's the same than the wiki I posted later, isn't it?

Breathe it in! Enjoy the fresh air at the Summer Palace, Beijing....









Or perhaps visit lovely Xi'an, home of the Terracotta Warriors...



And of course the Olympics are coming soon too...



Just go easy on them...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-15 13:39:35)

M.O.A.B wrote:

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted up yet, oh well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 347638.stm

The Onion always has an answer...

CameronPoe wrote:

Breathe it in! Enjoy the fresh air at the Summer Palace, Beijing....

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7585 … ce1wq6.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8383 … ce2qi4.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7715 … ce3mg3.jpg

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7052 … ce4zp8.jpg

Or perhaps visit lovely Xi'an, home of the Terracotta Warriors...

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7288/xianrv8.jpg

And of course the Olympics are coming soon too...

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3961 … iumzv8.jpg

Just go easy on them...

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/913/signva0.jpg

Fucking hell! I really wouldn't be surprised if athletes become the main boycotting force this Olympics. Running in that shit has got to knock a couple of seconds off your time.