Voilà, c’est fait. En ce 15 mars, le Canada a déjà consommé l’ensemble des ressources naturelles renouvelables que la Terre peut lui fournir en une année pour ne pas puiser dans ses réserves. Sortez les bulles… et jetez-les aux poubelles après en avoir bu une gorgée !
Per capita means it’s adjusted for the population. Both China and India are large polluters but they are the two most populated countries in the world.
Yes, we are small compared to them. But we are doing very well! This article is full of numbers without sources, making it an opinion piece.
Here’s something I can agree with::
(translated by google)
“ It is not only the limits of our planet that are exceeded, so is our economic model”, and
“… the only way to curb the looting and deadly destruction of our resources by the most greedy among us is to impose severe and ambitious regulatory constraints on them”
If Canada has 10 people and 6 of them are heroin addicts, and China has 1000 people and 60 of them are heroin addicts, then even though China has 10 times as many addicts they’re doing a better job curbing addiction since only 6% rather than 60% of people are addicted.
I understand percentages. But in your example of addicts, it’s the number of people that counts in my book, not whether or percentage is lower.
I also understand that more people, pollute more, absolutely. So to think that our small population needs to make a significant effort to reduce pollution , which is absolute, is a guilt reaction.
It is certainly one way to compare. But in terms of global change, absolute numbers must be considered. No matter hours many people there are, we all breathe the same air. With more people in the area, there’s more pollutants in the air, whether it’s per capita or not. So while it may be logical to compare per capita, it’s not really the practical reality.
Per capita means it’s adjusted for the population. Both China and India are large polluters but they are the two most populated countries in the world.
Yes, we are small compared to them. But we are doing very well! This article is full of numbers without sources, making it an opinion piece.
Here’s something I can agree with:: (translated by google)
“ It is not only the limits of our planet that are exceeded, so is our economic model”, and
“… the only way to curb the looting and deadly destruction of our resources by the most greedy among us is to impose severe and ambitious regulatory constraints on them”
Here is some data supporting that Canada is second in per-capita CO2 emissions after the US.
When looking at consumption-based emissions the picture is not quite as dire but it’s still not great.
I don’t think you’re getting it.
If Canada has 10 people and 6 of them are heroin addicts, and China has 1000 people and 60 of them are heroin addicts, then even though China has 10 times as many addicts they’re doing a better job curbing addiction since only 6% rather than 60% of people are addicted.
I understand percentages. But in your example of addicts, it’s the number of people that counts in my book, not whether or percentage is lower. I also understand that more people, pollute more, absolutely. So to think that our small population needs to make a significant effort to reduce pollution , which is absolute, is a guilt reaction.
The only logical way to compare countries’ climate progress is per capita…
It is certainly one way to compare. But in terms of global change, absolute numbers must be considered. No matter hours many people there are, we all breathe the same air. With more people in the area, there’s more pollutants in the air, whether it’s per capita or not. So while it may be logical to compare per capita, it’s not really the practical reality.