The per capita statistic is useless and misleading - especially for CO2 emissions

Have a look at how stupid the per capita statistic really is.

On the left we have CO2 emissions per capita

On the right we have CO2 emissions by volume.

Where the fark is China on the per capita table dont even appear and yet they are the biggest polluters

Per capita is USELESS

 

Yes and No.

I see the point that the nations with the most emissions should do the most to curb emissions but the one problem with that is that a nation with a billion people will always have more emissions than a nation with twenty million even if the nation with twenty million used ten times as much power per person.

It is quite embarassing that Australia rank above France on the second table. France is far more populated and are similar to us in being a first world country yet they rank below us even though they (roughly) have double the amount of citizens.

 

Our circumstances differ to those of other countries, simple as that.
The wrist flapping, hair shirt brigade won`t get a guilt trip out of me on this one.

 

Hey Parker

Would the Chinesse be justified if they turned around and said to us,

Now listen cobber we aint got a CO2 problem at all, we rank 83 in the per capita stakes you rank 4, so fix up your problem cause your PM even says you are the worst polluters in the world going of the per capita chart which is the ONLY chart she ever mentions.

 

I said you have a point. China needs to sort out its carbon emissions but we also have a problem. We are ranking ahead of countries in terms of pure emissions that we should not finish ahead.

There is no reason for us to have more emissions than France or Spain.

 

You got a point there parker.

Ok we'll have to stop using electricity cars and every other energy source that has lifted us out of the stone age.

 

That interpretation is clearly avoiding the facts.

France and Spain both are first world countries. Both have all the things you have mentioned but they can produce less emissions than us even with double the citizens.

That tells me we need to look at how we are using our energy and how we can be lower our energy consumption without lowering our standard of living.

 

and oranges are not apples, well we are learning aren't we.

in my thread "Desperate and Dangerous" I talk about desperate people using false assumptions - .dangerous

There is 100 million cars in china and only 17 million in Australia and that includes motor cycles.
There is 400 million working television sets in china and only 19 million in Australia
The net worth of china is around $6.7 trillion and the net worth of Australia is $8089.9 billion

wow, looks like china is the place to live doesn't it, it must have a higher standard of living than Australia

hmmm but wait, the average wage in china is $0.57 per hour, maybe we should compare the cars, televisions and net worth per person, the average, per capita, to see who is better off?????????????????????????

 

Desperate and Dangerous, but if it helps the dumb and dumber people to understand what Per Capita means it will be worth it.

 

How is it useless or misleading, if you want to know the countries CO2 emissions multiply the Per Capita emissions by the number of people, if you want to know how much each person contributes to it, well that is the per capita figure.

Very useful and very clear

 

No reason? Have you bothered to find out the source of ommissions in France and Spain and Australia?

 

You forgot about looking at the source of ommissions, particularly electricity generation. We get most of our electricty generation from burning coal which is a 'dirty' fuel. But we aren't doing anything about it when we easily could because there is no political will to do anything about it. While Labor is controlled by the unions you will never see the coal fired generators converted to cleaner fuel because that would mean shuting down a few coal mines which are a huge source of union membership revenue. While the greenies have so much sway you will never see any more hydro power stations built.
The farking dickheads we have in all levels of government have now even taken away all the incentives to put solar panels on your house!! They are not interested in reducing pollution, on the contrary, they have turned pollution into a revenue producing commodity so they want it to continue and even increase!

 

Dead right Dom, the per capita statistic is misleading unless put into context, something Juliar fails to do. It is even more misleading if you don't temper it further with reference to the many other factors about energy generation and consumption that differ between countries.

 

well said AD

 

So then if we divide Australias Co2 emissions by every man woman and child.

Every man woman and child emitts X amount of CO2 - Bwahahahahahaha

BULLSH!T

I'll let you in on a little secret its a hand full of companies dude.

500 big polluters

2.1 million businesses in Australia

And thats why the per capita statistic means SFA.

 

It`s childish to use the per capita statistic in relation to carbon emissions. In a country of vast distances and a small population, a country with a quarry economy, it`s only to be expected to have a high per capita output.

Just wondering what the Aboriginal per capita carbon output would have been pre white settlement. Burning everything that would burn on an anual basis, would have produced quite a bit of carbon output I would have thought?

 

.........................................................................................................

 

You don't need to keep posting the same thing, we all already know you have no concept of what "per capita" means. It doesn't mean that every one contributes that amount, no one except you thinks that and even most of your skeptic mates steer clear of this argument because it is dumb. It's a statistical method, oh sorry to talk in mathematical speak. It's like the word average, we build doors on house at 6' something, not sure I'm not a builder. If I was to say the average Australian could fit through the door, that doesn't mean every one can.

Very simple concept for most people to understand, I truly fail to see why you can't D&D. Except for the same reason as the picture in my previous response to Aussie

 

Source of Omissions? Well if we are talking omissions as in "someone omitted to give him a clue" I would say the current Queensland parliament would fit the bill

If we are talking Emissions then look at some of our ageing and world standard polluting power stations like Hazelwood

 

I know what per capita means its a useless economic statistic thats about as useful as knowing how many dimples are on a gold ball.

Misleading to say the least when used for CO2 emissions thats why Gillard only ever quotes per capita CO2 missions cause she has been misleading Australians from day one.

Lets see China is the biggest emitter of CO2 by volume at around 22% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

On the per capita chart China is around 83 on the ladder.

So what does the per capita statistic prove when it comes to CO2 it makes China look good and Australia which only emitts 1.5% of all manmade CO2 bad.

Misleading and useless, the world will linch Australia for her Co2 emissions and let China of because she is 83 on the per capita ladder.

There's gotta be something wrong with that train of thought doesn't there.

The economics books would be the first books to be burned if we ever needed to keep warm or die thats for sure.

Useless.

Then what the fark does it mean?........NOTHING

Per capita means NOTHING a useless economic statistic.

No its just dividing something by the number of people in that country which means NOTHING. eg

How many McDonalds stores in Australia per capita???.....WTF cares

How many AFL players are there per capita???.................WTF cares

How many 6' 4" Australians per capita???..........................WTF cares

It means absolutely nothing.

How many people have herpes per capita.......................................useless information

 

Thank you. If you look at your foot you will see it has a bullet hole in it.

So you do know what per capita means, then what you are doing is creating a strawman.

If you know what per capita means then you know that this

is "similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man")," and then to say

is to " refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

An absolute text book example of a STRAWMAN

 

So because China have low emissions per capita that renders the term/concept useless? Yeah, uhhh, what?

 

The per capita line is just a dodgy spin to try to make a minute amount look like a huge crime. Simpletons swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Look not only does he depend 100% on Aunt Sally for his argument, it is fundamentally wrong. The largest proportion of CO2 emissions are created by manufacturing. We import more manufactured goods then we export, we import a huge amount from china, why because everyone is rich, we all have $230000 in the bank. The Chinese have an average hourly wage of $0.83. I don't see them buying much manufactured goods. We import goods because they are cheap because they are made by people who are paid a pittance and dumb wants them to pay more carbon tax then us. We import their carbon debt.

 

Lepper, I think he is calling us simpletons