top | item 45241586

(no title)

CapitalistCartr | 5 months ago

The USA, China, and India are the leaders on Climate Change emmisions, and have to make real changes for global results. Until us three get serious, progress is nil.

discuss

order

tsimionescu|5 months ago

India is not in even in the top 30 countries that can realistically reduce emissions. They have per capita emissions lower than any European country, except maybe Iceland. Lower than the Nordics, much, much lower than France or Germany or Spain. There's no way for them to reduce their emissions without severely impacting lifestyle even more drastically - which is not at all the case for us here in Europe.

BoardsOfCanada|5 months ago

To quantify this, India had a per capita CO2 emission of 2.07 tonnes per year, while Sweden had 3.43 (2023). Sweden used this to achieve a 58,100 USD per capita GDP (2025) compared to India's 2,878 USD all while using a non-unsignificant part of it as heating in the winter. It would be great for all of us if India could do better on a per capita basis since the resulting effect would be huge.

legulere|5 months ago

Why not? India could easily leapfrog fossil fuels, and replacing coal with renewables would even have a positive impact.

hopelite|5 months ago

India started around 40 new coal power plants just in 2024.

Per capita is irrelevant in this matter. The presumed impacts on the environment and the planet do not care that India has long had an unsustainable, reckless population size. Per capita use in situations like this is simply ridiculous and evasive lying.

1over137|5 months ago

If they can’t reduce per capita, they could reduce population: free birth control, etc etc.

foobiekr|5 months ago

[deleted]

maxglute|5 months ago

Then there's is no progress to be made. Developing using cheap energy regardless of emissions, i.e. the harm/ethics (positives) of poverty reduction > pollution any day. US/west sets the baseline for historic not just annual per capita emission - annual doesn't capture historic emissions for building infra/capita base. Many countries still have magnitude more steel to smelt and concrete to pour. If developing / low middle income countries does most of the growing/developing on clean generation, better, if west wants to subsidize that like prior climate pledges, they're welcome to. Until then, their per capita is floor of what everyone should aim for. Ultimately, global emissions isn't really worth worrying, as in even if it's existential for some tiny islands or climate death zones, there's shit all do because most of the world who desires to be rich and comfortable will just chug along.

tonyhart7|5 months ago

china is world factory

stop buying cheap things from china then

repelsteeltje|5 months ago

Stuff. Indeed it's mostly about stuff we buy (which is mostly from China).

If you want to lower emissions, not flying and not eating meat is important. But stuff we buy - clothes, electronics, cars, furniture, even solar panels: consider if you really need it, for how long will it last, and why can't it wait. Don't click "buy now"

tonyedgecombe|5 months ago

Most people’s emissions come from housing, transport and food. Cheap tat from China barely registers.

immibis|5 months ago

Tariffs can do that