Princeton professor is wrong; Trump is right on climate

[cnelsen]

A posting yesterday on Project Syndicate by Peter Singer, a Princeton University professor of something called "bioethics", attacks President Trump for derailing the globalist pl--, er, for pulling the US out of the Paris Accords. Professor Singer argues that, because Americans and the rest of the industrialized world use more energy per capita than those in the developing world, "fairness" demands we need to use less so that they can use more. We need to stop doing things like traveling for vacation, he says, or using air conditioning. The "savings" in carbon emissions could then be donated to places like the Ivory Coast, removing the carbon deficit preventing the world's poorest from becoming rich like us.

If that seems like a good way to tackle "climate change", you'll cheer Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

You see, since you aren't a bioethicist, you probably don't know that it all boils down to carbon emissions per capita. No one should be able to emit more gas than anyone else. But, unfortunately, the world is divided into nations, which are just the worst when it comes to ensuring global carbon emissions equality. If only there were some small group of people with the power to redistribute energy consumption equally--a group of, oh, I don't know--bioethicists, say, to force an Icelandic truck driver and a Sudanese goat herder to leave the same size carbon footprint--then we'd avoid the catastrophe of climate change.

I ran the numbers, and Professor Singer is full of shit. Using data from a Yale study that compared carbon emitting energy consumption to strength of carbon emission policies by country, I calculated the correlation coefficient between that data and population data to see whether Professor Singer's attack on Donald Trump was something other than a tantrum over the thwarting of the globalist power play. It wasn't.

Here are the different population variables with their respective r-factors:

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table, cellpadding: 4, width: 100%, border-spacing: 1px, border-width: 1px"][TBODY][TR][TD]Population size [/TD][TD="align: right"]

-0.0759 ​

[/TD][TD]there is very little correlation between population size and the size of a country's carbon footprint[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Population growth rate[/TD][TD="align: right"]

-0.1451​

[/TD][TD]also very little correlation with a population's annual change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Net population change[/TD][TD="align: right"]

-0.1517​

[/TD][TD]same as above[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Population density[/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.1033​

[/TD][TD]negligible correlation [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Land area[/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.0989​

[/TD][TD]same as above[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Fertility rate[/TD][TD="align: right"]

-0.3434​

[/TD][TD]significant correlation between high fertility and low carbon footprint[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Median age[/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.3707​

[/TD][TD]the older the population, the more energy consumed[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Urban %[/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.3697​

[/TD][TD]city-dwellers use more energy [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

And here is where it gets interesting:

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table, cellpadding: 4, width: 100%, border-spacing: 1px"][TBODY][TR][TD]Good Enviromental Emission Laws [/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.3602​

[/TD][TD]significant correlation between environmental legislation and reduced carbon emissions[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Legislation passed in last decade[/TD][TD="align: right"]

-0.0579​

[/TD][TD]but recent policy efforts have been ineffective[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Size of migrant population[/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.3027​

[/TD][TD]The more migrants, the more emissions[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Migrants as percent of pop. [/TD][TD="align: right"]

0.4148​

[/TD][TD]highest correlation of all between migrants as a percent of population and emissions footprint[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

So, the single worst thing we could do is import people from agrarian low carbon producing countries to places where they can enjoy higher consumption levels. (George Soros, who is single-handedly bringing in millions of such to the West, contributes articles to the same website Professor Singer's article appeared). And while wise policies have helped, new policy efforts have failed.

But don't expect Professor Singer to advocate honestly for the good of the planet that we shut off the immigration spigot. Look for him to demonstrate his concern for Mother Earth by attacking President Trump, instead.

data

 

[RodISHI]

College professors have minimized their effectiveness at this point as too many were allowed to pushed too much shit out there for others to live with. It really is a shame as it taints the decent ones too.

 

[cnelsen]

College professors have minimized their effectiveness at this point as too many were allowed to pushed too much shit out there for others to live with. It really is a shame as it taints the decent ones too.

Here's how weak this professor's argument is. I posted several arguments against his article on the site that published it (Project Syndicate) and, instead of trying to defend his piece like a man, he had the web site remove my comments. So, he's weak AND a pussy. Pity his students and avoid Princeton. Haha.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Professor Singer argues that, because Americans and the rest of the industrialized world use more energy per capita than those in the developing world, "fairness" demands we need to use less so that they can use more.

Okay, so you've potentially shown us that even bright people occasionally and/or with regard to certain matters have "brain farts."

I ran the numbers, and Professor Singer is full of shit. Using data from a Yale study that compared carbon emitting energy consumption to strength of carbon emission policies by country, I calculated the correlation coefficient between that data and population data to see whether Professor Singer's attack on Donald Trump was something other than a tantrum over the thwarting of the globalist power play. It wasn't.

You went to the same place my mind did immediately upon reading this:

so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have

Admittedly I didn't confirm the nature of your calculations, and I probably won't for even just "ball parking" them based only on the qualitative understanding I have of places like Zimbabwe, Singer's argument doesn't make sense. I'm thus not surprised that your quantitative analysis indicates the same. (I have not as yet read the linked essay.)

George Soros, who is single-handedly bringing in millions of such to the West, contributes articles to the same website Professor Singer's article appeared

I was quite pleased with your OP until I got to this parenthetical comment, which you, as do I, surely realize the mere mention of that man's name is nothing other than inflammatory on this forum. What compelled you to mention Soros in what is otherwise a very objectively presented essay? Did you get that near the end of your composition and have it down on you that you had better say something that most assuredly would emotionally incite members to respond? (LOL)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

 

[GHook93]

But we can all agree that cnelsen is an uneducated twat! Just saying


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[cnelsen]

I was quite pleased with your OP until I got to this parenthetical comment, which you, as do I, surely realize the mere mention of that man's name is nothing other than inflammatory on this forum. What compelled you to mention Soros in what is otherwise a very objectively presented essay? Did you get that near the end of your composition and have it down on you that you had better say something that most assuredly would emotionally incite members to respond? (LOL)

No, just that that publication has a certain, shall we say, pro-globalist, virulently anti-Trump, anti-nationalist point of view. I haven't been reading it long, but I've yet to discover any heterodoxy there. The sine qua non of the globalist cabal is George Soros, who is also published there. And he is, in fact, spending millions to do exactly what I show is the very worst thing to do, climate-wise. But Professor Singer, et al., ignore Soros' baneful activities and attack Trump whose immigration policies would have a salubrious effect on the planet's health. If I, a layman, can discover the fraud with a couple hours' effort and an Internet connection, surely a professional bioethicist knows the score. In other words, I feel Professor Singer's article wasn't in error.

 

[RodISHI]

 

[cnelsen]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

I respect your opinion so I went back and reread and I think this is exactly what he is is advocating. I paraphrase in the interest of adding sparks, but he does claim the US owes for two centuries of carbon emissions (while, in another place, where it suits his argument, he acknowledges the impact of emitted carbon diminishing over time) and asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

 

[cnelsen]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

My quick spreadsheet analysis of the Yale study also showed that age correlates positively with energy consumption, urbanization correlates positively, and fertility correlates negatively. All these seem to make intuitive sense. If you look over the table I posted on my site, other positive correlates appear to be wealth, which one would expect, as well as climate (Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places). Prof Singer, the professional bioethicist, fails even to mention variables like the weather and, in one suspiciously selective exculpatory phrase, cites the high US per capita carbon footprint as justification for punishing US taxpayers, but lets the nine countries with a larger footprint off the hook by limiting the targets to "other large emitters, like China and India". In other words, everyone skates but the US. If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right. And the Princeton professor knows it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually.....to be fair, we don't know if Trump is right or wrong regarding the climate. But that's the whole point........not a swinging dick alive knows for shit who is right or wrong. NOBODY KNOWS DICK. You don't go out and fuck the economy based upon conjecture............and Trump is spot on about that. Progressives never care about costs because costs never matter to progressives.

We need decades of ongoing study to figure this shit out...........duh

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

I respect your opinion so I went back and reread and I think this is exactly what he is is advocating. I paraphrase in the interest of adding sparks, but he does claim the US owes for two centuries of carbon emissions (while, in another place, where it suits his argument, he acknowledges the impact of emitted carbon diminishing over time) and asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

My quick spreadsheet analysis of the Yale study also showed that age correlates positively with energy consumption, urbanization correlates positively, and fertility correlates negatively. All these seem to make intuitive sense. If you look over the table I posted on my site, other positive correlates appear to be wealth, which one would expect, as well as climate (Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places). Prof Singer, the professional bioethicist, fails even to mention variables like the weather and, in one suspiciously selective exculpatory phrase, cites the high US per capita carbon footprint as justification for punishing US taxpayers, but lets the nine countries with a larger footprint off the hook by limiting the targets to "other large emitters, like China and India". In other words, everyone skates but the US. If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right. And the Princeton professor knows it.

asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

justification for punishing US taxpayers

"Paying for" and "punishment" inherently carries a reactive connotation, whereas I find in Singer's essay a prospective tone. That contextual difference is where you and I differently see his essay and its central thesis, raison d'etre, if you will.

I agree with Singer in that I think the U.S. rightly has a larger burden to bear than do nearly all other nations as goes prospectively reducing carbon emissions. I also agree with you insofar as I think making the U.S. "pay" for past emissions is nuts; moreover, I think such isn't going to happen, at least not if the U.S. has a say about it.

If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right.

Well, nobody is going to hear from me that, in terms of the go-forward attenuating efforts and costs, that everyone must bear a share of the burden. By the same token and obviously, given the U.S.' current energy consumption rate, which currently and historically exceeds(-ed) that of nearly every other nation (see bullets below), it must, ethically speaking, unavoidably bear a larger share of that burden than other nations. I don't think there's any legitimately developed proportionality constant that might equitably ("bioethically" if one wants to use Singer's parlance) indicate otherwise.

• 2011 -- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
• 2014 -- 6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters | World Resources Institute
• World carbon emissions: the league table of every country

(Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places)

I realize the quoted passage above is parenthetical, thus not central to your remarks. All the same, I have to note that it doesn't jibe with the data I've been above to quickly find by Googling for "per capita carbon footprint by nation."

• 2000 (?) -- Per Capita Carbon Emissions Data By Country - COTAP.org - Carbon Offsets To Alleviate Poverty -- I can't place too much weight on this listing as it's lacks some relevant bits of qualifying info, such as to what time period it applies. A "quick and dirty" perusal of it suggests it is the same list found here -- Per Capita Emissions -- and that is dated 2000.
• 2010 -- Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita | Economics Help -- Having stated the caveats I did in the previous bullet, it appears that between 2000 and 2010, little changed in per capita emissions by nation.
  
• 2014 -- Countries with highest CO2 emission per capita | The Shift Project Data Portal -- Here again we see that little changed in per capita emissions by nation from 2010 to 2014.

In light of the above data observations, I have to ask, what led you to say Canada and Iceland have higher per capita CO2 emissions than does the U.S?

I respect your opinion

TY. I as well have respect for you and your comments. Even if I don't agree with them, I enjoy reading them for (1) they consistently provide enough "stuff" for one to "wrap one's head around" and (2) I can at least have a substantive discussion with you, which is more (though it should not be; but you and I cannot control that) than I can say for the vast majority of frequent posters here.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lol,

Is this thread a joke or what? The princeton professor is somehow wrong to a raving idiot that doesn't have a clue about basic climate. lol

 

[cnelsen]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

I respect your opinion so I went back and reread and I think this is exactly what he is is advocating. I paraphrase in the interest of adding sparks, but he does claim the US owes for two centuries of carbon emissions (while, in another place, where it suits his argument, he acknowledges the impact of emitted carbon diminishing over time) and asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

My quick spreadsheet analysis of the Yale study also showed that age correlates positively with energy consumption, urbanization correlates positively, and fertility correlates negatively. All these seem to make intuitive sense. If you look over the table I posted on my site, other positive correlates appear to be wealth, which one would expect, as well as climate (Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places). Prof Singer, the professional bioethicist, fails even to mention variables like the weather and, in one suspiciously selective exculpatory phrase, cites the high US per capita carbon footprint as justification for punishing US taxpayers, but lets the nine countries with a larger footprint off the hook by limiting the targets to "other large emitters, like China and India". In other words, everyone skates but the US. If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right. And the Princeton professor knows it.

asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

justification for punishing US taxpayers

"Paying for" and "punishment" inherently carries a reactive connotation, whereas I find in Singer's essay a prospective tone. That contextual difference is where you and I differently see his essay and its central thesis, raison d'etre, if you will.

I agree with Singer in that I think the U.S. rightly has a larger burden to bear than do nearly all other nations as goes prospectively reducing carbon emissions. I also agree with you insofar as I think making the U.S. "pay" for past emissions is nuts; moreover, I think such isn't going to happen, at least not if the U.S. has a say about it.

If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right.

Well, nobody is going to hear from me that, in terms of the go-forward attenuating efforts and costs, that everyone must bear a share of the burden. By the same token and obviously, given the U.S.' current energy consumption rate, which currently and historically exceeds(-ed) that of nearly every other nation (see bullets below), it must, ethically speaking, unavoidably bear a larger share of that burden than other nations. I don't think there's any legitimately developed proportionality constant that might equitably ("bioethically" if one wants to use Singer's parlance) indicate otherwise.

• 2011 -- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
• 2014 -- 6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters | World Resources Institute
• World carbon emissions: the league table of every country

(Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places)

I realize the quoted passage above is parenthetical, thus not central to your remarks. All the same, I have to note that it doesn't jibe with the data I've been above to quickly find by Googling for "per capita carbon footprint by nation."

• 2000 (?) -- Per Capita Carbon Emissions Data By Country - COTAP.org - Carbon Offsets To Alleviate Poverty -- I can't place too much weight on this listing as it's lacks some relevant bits of qualifying info, such as to what time period it applies. A "quick and dirty" perusal of it suggests it is the same list found here -- Per Capita Emissions -- and that is dated 2000.
• 2010 -- Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita | Economics Help -- Having stated the caveats I did in the previous bullet, it appears that between 2000 and 2010, little changed in per capita emissions by nation.
  
• 2014 -- Countries with highest CO2 emission per capita | The Shift Project Data Portal -- Here again we see that little changed in per capita emissions by nation from 2010 to 2014.

In light of the above data observations, I have to ask, what led you to say Canada and Iceland have higher per capita CO2 emissions than does the U.S?

I respect your opinion

TY. I as well have respect for you and your comments. Even if I don't agree with them, I enjoy reading them for (1) they consistently provide enough "stuff" for one to "wrap one's head around" and (2) I can at least have a substantive discussion with you, which is more (though it should not be; but you and I cannot control that) than I can say for the vast majority of frequent posters here.

I got the Canada/Iceland data from here: http://epi.yale.edu./sites/default/files/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf
which actually lists Qatar at the very top. That seems believable to me.

Professor Singer goes further than just advocating historical consumption be charged (as you say, it's nuts...the American manufacturing juggernaut of, say, the 50s and 60s doubtless produced greenhouse gases which have not only dissipated, I'm guessing. long ago, but weren't taxed back then, by which the whole world benefited from cheaper cars and other manufactures, and now Singer wants to sock Americans for that? Insane.). He also advocates allocating carbon quotas by "need". We are rich enough, he says, and should stay at home on our vacations. The carbon "credits" Americans earn by staying at home in un-air-conditioned houses and eating legumes would be applied to countries that "need" to industrialize. There is so much absurdity in there it's rather stunning, frankly. First, I sincerely doubt whether the only thing standing between Zimbabwe and industrialization is not enough wiggle room in their carbon quotas. But you can be sure China would love to make one of Mugabe's wives the "owner" of a big new carbon-spewing factory churning out cheap cars and have American taxpayers build it for them to make up for our past pollution sins. And who gets to decide who "needs" to be able to pollute more? I'll bet Professor Singer thinks he should be on the committee. I mean, the whole thing truly is nuts. Even the per capita equality thing is unenforceable even if it were workable, which it's not. How is a crew building a canal in frigid Norway going to have the same energy consumption as an agrarian village in the highlands of Colombia? It's nuts, cubed.

 

[cnelsen]

Lol,

Is this thread a joke or what? The princeton professor is somehow wrong to a raving idiot that doesn't have a clue about basic climate. lol

Offer an argument, sissy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I got the Canada/Iceland data from here: http://epi.yale.edu./sites/default/files/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf
which actually lists Qatar at the very top. That seems believable to me.

I just reviewed the document you cite by searching for the term "per capita."

• I found nothing indicating the rankings are per capita with regard to carbon emissions. That is what we were talking about isn't it?
• I couldn't find any table that lists Qatar at the top of anything. It's sort of near the top for the regional rankings of the Middle East.

I'm not remarking upon the YCELP's findings. I'm simply saying I simply cannot find in their document the data points you've noted.

 

[cnelsen]

I got the Canada/Iceland data from here: http://epi.yale.edu./sites/default/files/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf
which actually lists Qatar at the very top. That seems believable to me.

I just reviewed the document you cite by searching for the term "per capita."

• I found nothing indicating the rankings are per capita with regard to carbon emissions. That is what we were talking about isn't it?
• I couldn't find any table that lists Qatar at the top of anything. It's sort of near the top for the regional rankings of the Middle East.

I'm not remarking upon the YCELP's findings. I'm simply saying I simply cannot find in their document the data points you've noted.

My mistake. What I wrongly called "population data" from wikipedia was actually the link to the per capita data I used (first column under 2013)

List of countries by energy consumption per capita - Wikipedia

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

I respect your opinion so I went back and reread and I think this is exactly what he is is advocating. I paraphrase in the interest of adding sparks, but he does claim the US owes for two centuries of carbon emissions (while, in another place, where it suits his argument, he acknowledges the impact of emitted carbon diminishing over time) and asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

My quick spreadsheet analysis of the Yale study also showed that age correlates positively with energy consumption, urbanization correlates positively, and fertility correlates negatively. All these seem to make intuitive sense. If you look over the table I posted on my site, other positive correlates appear to be wealth, which one would expect, as well as climate (Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places). Prof Singer, the professional bioethicist, fails even to mention variables like the weather and, in one suspiciously selective exculpatory phrase, cites the high US per capita carbon footprint as justification for punishing US taxpayers, but lets the nine countries with a larger footprint off the hook by limiting the targets to "other large emitters, like China and India". In other words, everyone skates but the US. If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right. And the Princeton professor knows it.

asserts we must pay for the harm we've done over this period.

justification for punishing US taxpayers

"Paying for" and "punishment" inherently carries a reactive connotation, whereas I find in Singer's essay a prospective tone. That contextual difference is where you and I differently see his essay and its central thesis, raison d'etre, if you will.

I agree with Singer in that I think the U.S. rightly has a larger burden to bear than do nearly all other nations as goes prospectively reducing carbon emissions. I also agree with you insofar as I think making the U.S. "pay" for past emissions is nuts; moreover, I think such isn't going to happen, at least not if the U.S. has a say about it.

If President Trump was referring to this when he called the accords unfair, then he was completely in the right.

Well, nobody is going to hear from me that, in terms of the go-forward attenuating efforts and costs, that everyone must bear a share of the burden. By the same token and obviously, given the U.S.' current energy consumption rate, which currently and historically exceeds(-ed) that of nearly every other nation (see bullets below), it must, ethically speaking, unavoidably bear a larger share of that burden than other nations. I don't think there's any legitimately developed proportionality constant that might equitably ("bioethically" if one wants to use Singer's parlance) indicate otherwise.

• 2011 -- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
• 2014 -- 6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters | World Resources Institute
• World carbon emissions: the league table of every country

(Canada and Iceland, for example, have a greater per capita footprint than the US no doubt a function of the more extreme weather in those places)

I realize the quoted passage above is parenthetical, thus not central to your remarks. All the same, I have to note that it doesn't jibe with the data I've been above to quickly find by Googling for "per capita carbon footprint by nation."

• 2000 (?) -- Per Capita Carbon Emissions Data By Country - COTAP.org - Carbon Offsets To Alleviate Poverty -- I can't place too much weight on this listing as it's lacks some relevant bits of qualifying info, such as to what time period it applies. A "quick and dirty" perusal of it suggests it is the same list found here -- Per Capita Emissions -- and that is dated 2000.
• 2010 -- Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita | Economics Help -- Having stated the caveats I did in the previous bullet, it appears that between 2000 and 2010, little changed in per capita emissions by nation.
  
• 2014 -- Countries with highest CO2 emission per capita | The Shift Project Data Portal -- Here again we see that little changed in per capita emissions by nation from 2010 to 2014.

In light of the above data observations, I have to ask, what led you to say Canada and Iceland have higher per capita CO2 emissions than does the U.S?

I respect your opinion

TY. I as well have respect for you and your comments. Even if I don't agree with them, I enjoy reading them for (1) they consistently provide enough "stuff" for one to "wrap one's head around" and (2) I can at least have a substantive discussion with you, which is more (though it should not be; but you and I cannot control that) than I can say for the vast majority of frequent posters here.

I got the Canada/Iceland data from here: http://epi.yale.edu./sites/default/files/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf
which actually lists Qatar at the very top. That seems believable to me.

Professor Singer goes further than just advocating historical consumption be charged (as you say, it's nuts...the American manufacturing juggernaut of, say, the 50s and 60s doubtless produced greenhouse gases which have not only dissipated, I'm guessing. long ago, but weren't taxed back then, by which the whole world benefited from cheaper cars and other manufactures, and now Singer wants to sock Americans for that? Insane.). He also advocates allocating carbon quotas by "need". We are rich enough, he says, and should stay at home on our vacations. The carbon "credits" Americans earn by staying at home in un-air-conditioned houses and eating legumes would be applied to countries that "need" to industrialize. There is so much absurdity in there it's rather stunning, frankly. First, I sincerely doubt whether the only thing standing between Zimbabwe and industrialization is not enough wiggle room in their carbon quotas. But you can be sure China would love to make one of Mugabe's wives the "owner" of a big new carbon-spewing factory churning out cheap cars and have American taxpayers build it for them to make up for our past pollution sins. And who gets to decide who "needs" to be able to pollute more? I'll bet Professor Singer thinks he should be on the committee. I mean, the whole thing truly is nuts. Even the per capita equality thing is unenforceable even if it were workable, which it's not. How is a crew building a canal in frigid Norway going to have the same energy consumption as an agrarian village in the highlands of Colombia? It's nuts, cubed.

the American manufacturing juggernaut of, say, the 50s and 60s doubtless produced greenhouse gases which have not only dissipated, I'm guessing. long ago,

I have not looked into the rate of greenhouse gas "dissipation." Given the laws about matter conservation, I suspect the only way they "dissipate" is by being consumed by plants, mostly trees, or by being combined with/bonded to "something" that alters their "greenhouse" properties, which is essentially what plants do with the carbon in CO2. I know there are far fewer trees on the planet now than there were even just ~80 years ago.

[In the post WWII era of American industry's manufacturing heyday,] the whole world [including the U.S.] benefited from cheaper cars and other manufactures, and now Singer wants to sock Americans for that? Insane.

I suspect you and I think it absurd for different reasons. Mine derives from economics: sunk costs. We used a variety of assets to produce those goods and to develop a wide array of innovations that we/everyone continue to [build upon and] enjoy even now. The consumable assets used "back in the day" are not recoverable; thus there's little to gain on either side of the "climate change"/AGW argument by trying to make something of those long-ago incurred "expenditures."

I get the "ethical" construct Singer has raised, and I accept its ethicality and appropriateness within the context wherein he's constrained his use of that line of argument. I also, however, see that line as being, at best, tangentially germane to overall argument about whom should bear what costs and discomforts, and to what extent, associated with abating the rate of global warming due to anthropogenic causes. (Obviously, most people in every nation are going to advocate that they should bear less of the costs than others think fitting.)

I sincerely doubt whether the only thing standing between Zimbabwe and industrialization is not enough wiggle room in their carbon quotas.

I've been taking your references to Zimbabwe as metaphorical/analogical? Am I mistaken in doing so?

the per capita equality thing is unenforceable even if it were workable

I don't know about the enforceability. I think the per capita idea can be structured to be workable.

Take, for example, my own carbon footprint. It is notably lower when I'm at home in D.C. and when I am in most places I go in Western Europe, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok and NYC, among other places. It goes up considerably when I go, for instance, to Los Angeles, Aspen, Tahoe, Jackson Hole, Jupiter, FL, China, St. Moritz, Barcelona/Ibiza, St. Barts, and the towns in which my kids are/were in school.

What makes for the difference? When I'm in the former locales, I walk or use public transportation almost exclusively, and even when I don't, the trips I find myself taking by private car are very short. In contrast, when I'm in the latter group of places, nothing of the sort is the case.

My own carbon consumption pattern suggests that living (staying) in close proximity -- i.e., walking distance or no more than a 10 minute drive -- to the vast majority of places one needs to go. That is something that nearly everyone in industrialized nations can conceivably do, but that few in fact do. Granted, I realize there are constraints that make it hard or impossible for some people to currently do so, but a great many of those constraints can be attenuated if we implement public policy that catalyzes the removal or attenuation of those obstacles.

One such policy might be requiring that commercial/industrial development either happen in place with be accompanied by residential development that aligns with the expected incomes of the people who'll work in the newly appearing businesses. One doesn't materially reduce carbon consumption by, in the middle of an area having nothing but multimillion dollar mansions, building a mall that employs a few thousand people at and average wage of ~$35K/year.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I got the Canada/Iceland data from here: http://epi.yale.edu./sites/default/files/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf
which actually lists Qatar at the very top. That seems believable to me.

I just reviewed the document you cite by searching for the term "per capita."

• I found nothing indicating the rankings are per capita with regard to carbon emissions. That is what we were talking about isn't it?
• I couldn't find any table that lists Qatar at the top of anything. It's sort of near the top for the regional rankings of the Middle East.

I'm not remarking upon the YCELP's findings. I'm simply saying I simply cannot find in their document the data points you've noted.

My mistake. What I wrongly called "population data" from wikipedia was actually the link to the per capita data I used (first column under 2013)

List of countries by energy consumption per capita - Wikipedia

I think someone goofed in titling (and composing) the content found on that Wiki page. The data in the "big" table found there corresponds quite well with the data depicted in the scatter plot (pictured below) that one also finds in the Wiki entry. It does not, however, correspond to the data in that same entry's "Energy Use Per Capita" chart.

The thing is that the chart is a depiction of per capita energy consumption ranked against nations' social progress, not merely a depiction of per capita energy use. The two dimensions being depicted together are what put Iceland and Canada to the far upper right hand end of the plot.

To further corroborate my point about someone's having goofed, you'll note that the figure noted in the chart above does not match any of the figures fond in the United States row of the "big" table. I don't know precisely what's going on with that Wiki entry, but I can see several things don't "gel."

 

[usmbguest5318]

But we can all agree that cnelsen is an uneducated twat! Just saying

????