We have been for a long time, this is not new.
I would say that we continue to do nothing despite the dire forthcoming consequences, and that should be reported on ad nauseum.
Maybe Danielle Smith could fly around the US a few more times.
Thanks to everyone forcing return to office! Great job guys!
But the tax is axed, right?
Short sighted fucking idiots.
Something else at play here is accuracy in reporting. Canada has strict reporting regulations, which means the pollution reported matches the actual pollution pretty well (but this ignores that Canada releases a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere through natural processes as well — forest fires and permafrost methane off gassing for example).
Also, worth noting that where I live in Canada, there’s lots of public transit, minimal food waste, single use plastics aren’t legal to sell, and neither are single use plastic shopping/grocery bags. A lot of people drive electric vehicles, and electricity is generated by hydroelectricity.
Most of the pollution (and there IS a lot) is industrial, a lot of it related to tar sands oil extraction.
Soon to be corrected. As the USA’s population seeks asylum, the per capita pollution will naturally be less. Two problems solved.
“The solution to pollution is dilution”
Good old statistics! Always solving the big problems by showing the data in a different way.
Solving problems the Excel way.
I need a truck for my job. I had a 2011 Ford Ranger for YEARS. When that kicked the bucket in 2022, I was forced to by an F-150 and it’s an absolute monstrosity. It is massive and has LESS box space than my Ranger did. I don’t why it’s near impossible to buy a small truck with a full sized box in North America.
We just got rid of the carbon rebate (clowns that we are). We’d better fucking make the cost of industry polluting very high.
That’s a misleading statement designed to deflect attention from worse countries.
We have very low population density compared to other countries. So our pollution per km is extremely low. While countries like India and china are much much higher
Why do you feel pollution per km is an appropriate metric?
You can see the pollution from India and china from space. Or you could before Covid when it was making the news.
You can’t see any of Canada’s. From a distance you can see smog of the GTA and Vancouver’s lower mainland
I don’t think most people are trying to reduce emissions to improve the view of their region from space.
Most people are focusing on, you know, the carbon emissions which are heating the planet, and the downstream effects from the changes that incurs?
Emission levels per capita is absolutely a better metric than “the view from space”. It’s perhaps a bit misleading— should the emissions from China that go to making disposable shit for europe and North America be attributed to their production or our consumption? (Obviously China should own the fraction for their own domestic consumption regardless)
But yeah, the emissions per capita is a good metric even if my country doesn’t look good in it. Because even if you’re fooling yourself with this view from space nonsense you’re not fooling anyone else
We’re talking about global emissions here. Canada makes up a large portion of the globe. Per square km makes perfect sense.
The world doesn’t really care how many humans there are, but there’s a fixed amount of landmass*
*discounting sea level rise
That said, the important bit is overall impact. If Canada pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, burns the boreal forest, and releases the methane deposits in the permafrost and oceans, that’s a massive problem globally, and involves morethan just the petrochemicals we burn.
It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn’t make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.
This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on
Saying that pollution delta is important is a bad take?
Canada needs to fix its pollution problems by curbing the pollution. ALL of it. Focusing on per capita minimizes part of that just as much as focusing on landmass.
Especially since massive amounts of Canada’s pollution happens out of sight of the majority of the population.
I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.
A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.
For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.
A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.
Not saying this is false, but do you have a more recent source? This article is from last year.
A year old is not good enough? Not much changed between then and now.
I think their request is fair, we come to Lemmy for news rather than old information, though a reminder of how much we pollute without necessarily collecting extremely fresh data is also good.
It takes a lot of time (and effort) to collect and compile global scale datasets like this.
You’ve got to be kidding! No way Canada makes as much air pollution or solid waste as China, India, Africa, etc. We CAN do better but, the headline is BS.
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.
Canada has low population density, poor public transit, a very fossil heavy economy, and it’s taking significantly slower and less drastic steps towards becoming green compared to Europe and China.
Instead of giving ourselves a pass by looking at it from the only statistical lens that obfuscates all of those things by dramatically over-weighing our low population, instead you should be demanding more.
Do you know what a ranking of countries by total emissions looks like? A ranking of countries by population, with some small reordering at certain indices. How is that useful for anything scientific?
I’m sorry but you’re just plain wrong.
By that same reasoning we can’t criticize billionaires for contributing 100s of times as much in carbon emissions as the average person because of their lifestyles.
Per capita analysis tells us which countries have poor transit infrastructure, harmful lifestyles, legacy fossil-based economies. Total emissions analysis tells us which countries are more populated. Cool.
