|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2023 14:07:35 GMT
Clearly country A. Whatever country B does will have very little overall impact on the planet, while the leader of country A needs to take some drastic action. The leader of B can mirror that action in lockstep, but the leader of A cannot just ignore his majority contribution. OK, so country A then splits into four new countries. They're all even sized - now 0.75x the emissions of B, despite 1.5x the population. Has B suddenly moved from good guy to bad guy? The same amount of emissions have come from the same amount of people. All that's changed is some new arbitrary lines have been drawn on a map. If leaders are going to game the system to get an edge, we may as well accept we are doomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 14:31:42 GMT
move anywhere on this planet...... LOL you just have to laugh at the last guy standing on the tip of the human pyramid trying to reach the light switch
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 7, 2023 14:37:38 GMT
OK, so country A then splits into four new countries. They're all even sized - now 0.75x the emissions of B, despite 1.5x the population. Has B suddenly moved from good guy to bad guy? The same amount of emissions have come from the same amount of people. All that's changed is some new arbitrary lines have been drawn on a map. If leaders are going to game the system to get an edge, we may as well accept we are doomed. It has nothing to do with "gaming the system to gain an edge" which I'm sure you realise. What it does is highlight the absurdity of simply basing requirement for action on arbitrary boundaries which are nothing more than a function of history. After all, the reverse is equally true, and people who by this argument previously had limited or no responsibility to change now do so even though their contribution to emissions hasn't change one iota. But then you know that.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026 
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 7, 2023 14:48:29 GMT
OK, so country A then splits into four new countries. They're all even sized - now 0.75x the emissions of B, despite 1.5x the population. Has B suddenly moved from good guy to bad guy? The same amount of emissions have come from the same amount of people. All that's changed is some new arbitrary lines have been drawn on a map. If leaders are going to game the system to get an edge, we may as well accept we are doomed. ...and still you don't spot the flaw in your "per capita doesn't matter" logic? You said that per capita doesn't matter because the planet doesn't care about arbitrary geopolitical lines. That's exactly why per capita is the only relevant measure. Because those lines are irrelevant - and because the only way to compare countries is to take them out of the equation, and flatten out. Qatar - 88.5m tons CO2e UK - 353m tons Is the UK better or worse than Qatar? But introduce population... UK - 5.2t/person Qatar - 32.8t/person Is the UK better or worse than the global average? The European average? The G7 average? Without looking at population, that question is meaningless, because the UK is obviously only a subset of each of those groups. FWIW, global = 4.4t, EU27 = 6.1t, G7 = 8.2t The G20 emits 74% of the world's greenhouse gases - but that's meaningless without knowing it accounts for only 58% of the population. So, no, it's not the developing world that's to blame. It's the rich countries. Is the UK better than most rich countries? Yes. Does that mean we can sit back...? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2023 15:45:51 GMT
If leaders are going to game the system to get an edge, we may as well accept we are doomed. It has nothing to do with "gaming the system to gain an edge" which I'm sure you realise. What it does is highlight the absurdity of simply basing requirement for action on arbitrary boundaries which are nothing more than a function of history. After all, the reverse is equally true, and people who by this argument previously had limited or no responsibility to change now do so even though their contribution to emissions hasn't change one iota. But then you know that. Is it absurd? Boundaries are a function of history and geography, yes, but they aren't arbitrary. They define an entity and it's that entity's leaders who largely make the decisions concerning how his country behaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2023 15:55:24 GMT
If leaders are going to game the system to get an edge, we may as well accept we are doomed. ...and still you don't spot the flaw in your "per capita doesn't matter" logic? You said that per capita doesn't matter because the planet doesn't care about arbitrary geopolitical lines. That's exactly why per capita is the only relevant measure. Because those lines are irrelevant - and because the only way to compare countries is to take them out of the equation, and flatten out. Qatar - 88.5m tons CO2e UK - 353m tons Is the UK better or worse than Qatar? But introduce population... UK - 5.2t/person Qatar - 32.8t/person Is the UK better or worse than the global average? The European average? The G7 average? Without looking at population, that question is meaningless, because the UK is obviously only a subset of each of those groups. FWIW, global = 4.4t, EU27 = 6.1t, G7 = 8.2t The G20 emits 74% of the world's greenhouse gases - but that's meaningless without knowing it accounts for only 58% of the population. So, no, it's not the developing world that's to blame. It's the rich countries. Is the UK better than most rich countries? Yes. Does that mean we can sit back...? No. UK, Qatar, US, China.... four countries, four administrations, all have to do better and row in the same direction. No get-out-of-jail-free "we're poorer than you" or "per-capita" cards allowing some to row in the opposite direction. Excellent Panorama last night on TV concerning the tremendous emissions caused by data centres around the world. Here's a dilemma for you: if you respond to this thread, you are part of the problem.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,597
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Feb 7, 2023 16:08:28 GMT
not sure that's quite true
if you look at figures for US emissions they dropped in 2020 under Trump a confirmed climate denier and soared in 2021 under Biden. Other factors have to be taken into account one of which is the lag between decisions and actions.
Take the UK as an example if Sunak decides tomorrow that all UK Coal powered stations will be decommissioned by the end of 2025, it is likely to be under a Labour Government that we see the benefit of that move in terms of UK emissions.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,597
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Feb 7, 2023 16:25:35 GMT
Excellent Panorama last night on TV concerning the tremendous emissions caused by data centres around the world. Here's a dilemma for you: if you respond to this thread, you are part of the problem. And if you ask any major company in the UK where it would build a data centre the answer is likely to be within the M25 or Liverpool / Manchester. Whereas where is there lots of green power that often ends up curtailed, Scotland and Wales, we need to get used to having energy intensive industries near the source of power. let's say a typical rack mount server uses 200W, at a low estimate of 20 in a cabinet that's 4kW per cabinet I've been in server rooms with 30 plus cabinets so that's 120kW then there is all the heat from the associated switches routers etc. So you need a pretty high powered cooling system to dump all the heat, and in my experience that's what happened, heat was dumped even in a winter when it could have been circulated through the building. big data centres will be many times bigger than the ones I've been in, and remember these things run 24/7
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 7, 2023 16:32:22 GMT
if you look at figures for US emissions they dropped in 2020 under Trump a confirmed climate denier and soared in 2021 under Biden. 2020/21, y'say...? Hmm, I wonder...? ...<waits with bated breath>...Ooookay. That's not the one I was thinking of, I have to admit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2023 19:20:18 GMT
Excellent Panorama last night on TV concerning the tremendous emissions caused by data centres around the world. Here's a dilemma for you: if you respond to this thread, you are part of the problem. And if you ask any major company in the UK where it would build a data centre the answer is likely to be within the M25 or Liverpool / Manchester. Whereas where is there lots of green power that often ends up curtailed, Scotland and Wales, we need to get used to having energy intensive industries near the source of power. let's say a typical rack mount server uses 200W, at a low estimate of 20 in a cabinet that's 4kW per cabinet I've been in server rooms with 30 plus cabinets so that's 120kW then there is all the heat from the associated switches routers etc. So you need a pretty high powered cooling system to dump all the heat, and in my experience that's what happened, heat was dumped even in a winter when it could have been circulated through the building. big data centres will be many times bigger than the ones I've been in, and remember these things run 24/7 As a retired network engineer, I spent more than enough time basking in data centre rack-land too! My primary site returned the excess to warm the building at least, but many vent directly outside as you say. Before installing our mainframe and network racks, I remember them commissioning its cooling system (~40 years ago now). To simulate the expected load, they literally used row upon row of dual bar electric heaters, glowing at full heat. I was shocked at how many kilowatts they were preparing the ground for, and couldn't believe that much output could possibly be generated from a large mainframe and racks. Panorama delved right into the immense power requirements of today's data centres and - more easily overlooked - the immense water consumption for cooling. Getting the power and water to the centre is a logistic concern, as you highlight, but the main thrust was the level of emissions created by our obsession with watching cat videos. You'll be pleased to hear they didn't name the p2p forum specifically... 
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,050
Likes: 4,440
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 8, 2023 19:13:15 GMT
The problem with reducing global pollution is that there are far too many people with vested interests. Is Germany going to 'take one for the planet' by closing down its vast open cast coal mines? Will China stop building coal fired powere plants? I think we all know the answers.
Until Ukraine Germany was closing down coal mines The China picture is changing
I have an image of two people in a life boat with lots of water in it, one sits doing nothing because the other is not bailing out water. the other sits doing nothing because the other is not bailing out water. Both drown. Doing nothing because China is not doing what we want is the recipe of idiocy (present company excluded of course)
I have a different image. I'm in a big boat with lots of other people. The boat is sinking and I wonder if I should use my egg cup to try to bail the water out. When I look up I see people at the other end of the boat making more holes in the bottom, and I think what's the point of me busting a gut if the others aren't going to change their ways.
If you look at the worldometers link you posted earlier you can see that:
- in total terms, 3 of the top 4 poluters are third world countries
- on a per capita basis 9 of the top ten poluters are third world, with 5 of the top ten being gulf states.
Over the last 40 years or so there have been many wars. Generally if a western country are involved they fight by the rules, and third world countries ignoring them (human shields, chemical weapons, targeting civilians). I suspect that this two tier system will also apply to pollution. Western countries will try to reduce emissions, while third world will just carry on as before.
I live in a modest house with double glazing, cavity wall insulation and loft insulation. I drive about 5,000 miles a year in my car at > 50mpg. My big vice is that I like going on holiday, and I always fly business class. Why don't airlines pay duty on aviation fuel and why don't airline passengers pay VAT on their ticket?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 8, 2023 20:10:24 GMT
The problem with reducing global pollution is that there are far too many people with vested interests. Is Germany going to 'take one for the planet' by closing down its vast open cast coal mines? Will China stop building coal fired powere plants? I think we all know the answers. Until Ukraine Germany was closing down coal mines The China picture is changing I have an image of two people in a life boat with lots of water in it, one sits doing nothing because the other is not bailing out water. the other sits doing nothing because the other is not bailing out water. Both drown. Doing nothing because China is not doing what we want is the recipe of idiocy (present company excluded of course)
I have a different image. I'm in a big boat with lots of other people. The boat is sinking and I wonder if I should use my egg cup to try to bail the water out. When I look up I see people at the other end of the boat making more holes in the bottom, and I think what's the point of me busting a gut if the others aren't going to change their ways. Absolutely. Is your boat named SS Deja Vu by any chance...? 
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 8, 2023 20:32:31 GMT
I have a different image. I'm in a big boat with lots of other people. The boat is sinking and I wonder if I should use my egg cup to try to bail the water out. When I look up I see people at the other end of the boat making more holes in the bottom, and I think what's the point of me busting a gut if the others aren't going to change their ways. Absolutely. Is your boat named SS Deja Vu by any chance...? Jump out and swim?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 7:44:16 GMT
Bloody Chinese, drilling holes
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 9, 2023 8:03:09 GMT
If you look at the worldometers link you posted earlier you can see that: - in total terms, 3 of the top 4 poluters are third world countries
- on a per capita basis 9 of the top ten poluters are third world, with 5 of the top ten being gulf states.
<scratches head> The last GHG data link posted in this thread was... p2pindependentforum.com/post/468601data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true1 - Qatar - 32.8t 2 - Bahrain - 22.3t 3 - Kuwait - 20.9t 4 - UAE - 20.5t 5 - Oman - 16.5t 6 - Brunei - 16.0t 7 - Canada - 15.4t 8 - Luxembourg - 15.3t 9 - Australia - 15.3t 10 - US - 14.7t Which nine of those are "third world", iyho? Presumably, the US is the one that isn't? The top six are Gulf, true. Remind me of the basis for their economies? Going further back, to the older figures you refer to directly... p2pindependentforum.com/post/468574www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/Absolute numbers: 1 - China - 10.4bn tons = 7.38/pc 2 - US - 5bn = 15.5/pc 3 - India - 2.5bn = 1.9/pc 4 - Russia - 1.6bn = 11.44/pc 5 - Japan - 1.24bn = 9.7/pc 6 - Germany - 775m = 9.4/pc 7 - Canada - 676m = 18.6/pc 8 - Iran - 642m = 8.08/pc 9 - South Korea = 604m = 11.85/pc 10 - Indonesia = 530m = 2.03/pc Three of the top four are "third world"? Per capita: 1 - Qatar = 37.29t/pc 2 - Montenegro = 25.9t 3 - Kuwait = 25.65 4 - Trinidad & Tobago = 25.39 5 - UAE - 23.37 6 - Oman - 19.61 7 - Canada - 18.58 8 - Brunei - 18.28 9 - Luxembourg - 17.51 10 - Bahrain - 17.15 Which of those is not "third world"? Let's look at the two new entries in that last list - Montenegro and Trinidad/Tobago. Worldbank gives 4.2t for Montenegro and 11.3t for T&T. What could account for the difference? Could it be that both are small-population countries with fairly large amounts of tourism? In MNE's case, they almost all arrive by cruise ship (ever been to Kotor?). Should those emissions be counted for the destination, or for the tourists' home?
|
|
