Climate conscious folks, can you help me answer this question: If we want to stay within the planetary boundary defined by 1.5°C global warming, how many emissions in CO2e can each person make per year?
-
@malte it's not much a matter of countries, it's much, much more a matter of richness, with the kind of huge differences that are described in the attached graph, and with the most rich 0.1 emitting 304.82 tonnes per capita, the next 0.9% emitting 51.99 tpc, the next 9% emitting 15.84 tpc, the middle 40% emitting 5.19 tpc, the bottom 50% emitting 0.79 tpc (see the table at section "Emission Summary by Global Income Group" here: https://emissions-inequality.org/).
@jones You're missing my point and not responding to my question. Imagine we managed to abolish the most extreme inequality (which causes the emissions you're referring to and of which I'm very much aware of) and now lived in a much more equal world. How many emissions would there be for each person to use if we wanted to live within the boundary of 1,5C?
-
@malte and the point is that the longer we wait the more we need to cut.
@fideldonson Yes, the more we're overspending next years' budgets, the less there is left!
-
Just consider this idea: Imagine we had the power to set limits to our common energy use together. Just skip the part of how we would get there (having that kind of power) and imagine what we would do then. Imagine we had made capitalism come to a grinding halt, toppled the global oligarchy and had some good-enough global structures for making wise decisions for the health of planet and people. How much energy could we spend per person and still live within the planetary boundaries?
I'm actually a bit surprised how most people reacting to my post are not responding to the question, but letting their mind wander off to other places and taking me with them.
-
@malte @20000lbs_of_Cheese This isn’t about how an individual can fix the climate situation. Any thinking in this direction is a result of greenwashing. Grounding private aircraft would be a much more effective than cranking our heat down a couple of degrees in the winter. Not making war around the world would help even more. Don’t worry about numbers. Find some local people doing community gardening. Organize repair fairs. The most effective thing an individual could do would be to DUMP capitalism and break our addictions to consumption. Good luck.
@malte @20000lbs_of_Cheese Kudos on the gardening! Okay I’m reading your profile and I can kind of see where you are coming from. What I don’t understand is your concern over the numbers as far as what changes an individual can make that will get the world to maintaining a 1.5 degree temperature rise over preindustrial temperatures. ZERO petroleum consumption would be the ideal. That isn’t going to happen with the petrochemical industry controlling media and governments. They want the countries that aren’t hitting that threshold you mentioned to exceed that point. By a lot. I wished you luck earlier because it seems like the numbers you are looking for are on par with tilting with windmills. I don’t mean to frustrate you. My perspective isn’t yours and I want to better understand your perspective.
-
I'm actually a bit surprised how most people reacting to my post are not responding to the question, but letting their mind wander off to other places and taking me with them.
Where I come from we often call these kind of misattunements "flight behaviors", ie. their implicit goal is often to avoid the explicit goal of the context. In this context, the most immediate goal was to find an answer to the question above. So flight behaviors typically do something else than that. As a climate-focused psychologist I've spent lots of time observing how we evade all kinds of things related to climate change. Sometimes, like today, I'm surprised how common it is.
-
@malte @20000lbs_of_Cheese Kudos on the gardening! Okay I’m reading your profile and I can kind of see where you are coming from. What I don’t understand is your concern over the numbers as far as what changes an individual can make that will get the world to maintaining a 1.5 degree temperature rise over preindustrial temperatures. ZERO petroleum consumption would be the ideal. That isn’t going to happen with the petrochemical industry controlling media and governments. They want the countries that aren’t hitting that threshold you mentioned to exceed that point. By a lot. I wished you luck earlier because it seems like the numbers you are looking for are on par with tilting with windmills. I don’t mean to frustrate you. My perspective isn’t yours and I want to better understand your perspective.
RE: https://radikal.social/@malte/115849049081943469
@mmm_kay Do you mind me asking if you're using chatbots to generate your answers? Your answer indicates you're missing my point. If not, go ahead and read my response to your concern here:
-
Climate conscious folks, can you help me answer this question: If we want to stay within the planetary boundary defined by 1.5°C global warming, how many emissions in CO2e can each person make per year?
I know there are several ways to make the calculation. I just want to get a ballpark number so we can get some proportions in our lifestyle choices.
I was trying to see if I could find an answer, and was looking at the 2000w society, but I'm not sure there's anything there.
Unfortunately I'm not an expert in these calculations, but other toots in the thread mentioned that this number obviously go up as time goes by, I'm currently trying to find a graphic representation of that phenomenon that I remember having seen earlier last year, but I'm not coming up with much 🫤We've already passed 1.5°C though, haven't we?
-
@jones You're missing my point and not responding to my question. Imagine we managed to abolish the most extreme inequality (which causes the emissions you're referring to and of which I'm very much aware of) and now lived in a much more equal world. How many emissions would there be for each person to use if we wanted to live within the boundary of 1,5C?
@malte i got your question and i don't know the answer, i just wanted to point out it's mostly a matter of income.
-
RE: https://radikal.social/@malte/115849049081943469
@mmm_kay Do you mind me asking if you're using chatbots to generate your answers? Your answer indicates you're missing my point. If not, go ahead and read my response to your concern here:
@malte Oh I’m admitting to missing your point! Hence my continued engagement! I will read.
-
I was trying to see if I could find an answer, and was looking at the 2000w society, but I'm not sure there's anything there.
Unfortunately I'm not an expert in these calculations, but other toots in the thread mentioned that this number obviously go up as time goes by, I'm currently trying to find a graphic representation of that phenomenon that I remember having seen earlier last year, but I'm not coming up with much 🫤We've already passed 1.5°C though, haven't we?
@folfdk It's okay, we don't have to be experts. There are people with better skills that make those calculations. As for your other question - which might be leading, so you already know the answer - yes, we passed 1.5°C for the first time in 2024. That makes drawdown necessary to stay within that boundary.
-
@malte Oh I’m admitting to missing your point! Hence my continued engagement! I will read.
@mmm_kay Thanks. And was I right in suspecting you using chatbots to assist you in your engagement?
-
@malte i got your question and i don't know the answer, i just wanted to point out it's mostly a matter of income.
@jones Thanks, sometimes all it takes to be responsive is to admit you don't know the answer.
-
@mmm_kay Thanks. And was I right in suspecting you using chatbots to assist you in your engagement?
@malte Absolutely not.
-
You might ask "Which kind of lifestyle choices could this help us change our minds on?" I think a good example to start with is flying. Consider that a long trip like flying from Europe to Thailand burns between 1,2 to 3,4 tonnes CO2 per passenger, depending on airplane type etc.
@malte The worst thing one can do for climate is reproduce: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta
But, of course, people do not want to hear that. If anything, they dump the responsibility for their offsprings' emissions onto those offsprings themselves (who had no choice in coming into the existence).
Humans also hate to be told that they should stop consuming animal products (except billionaires).
-
@malte Absolutely not.
@malte Curious as to why you would think that.
-
@jones Thanks, sometimes all it takes to be responsive is to admit you don't know the answer.
@malte yes, but what's an "average Danish person"?
I mean, if you set "Denmark" as the country here, https://emissions-inequality.org/national/, and look at the "Emissions Summary by National Income Groups", you read that in 2022 the most rich 0.1% emitted 180.38 tonnes per capita, the next 0.9 29.82, the next 9% 12.78, the middle 40% 8.36, the bottom 50% 5.50. -
@mmm_kay Thanks. And was I right in suspecting you using chatbots to assist you in your engagement?
@malte Okay I read through your posts. First you have a huge academic advantage over me. Which is fine, it means I have an opportunity to learn from someone more knowledgeable than myself. Your question and explanations seem to me to be academic best answered by a fellow academic. I have no real answer to your question in regard to the hypothetical situation you describe. It does seem like it would be a different number depending on the physical environment a person was living in. Also what population are we supporting? Has the world depopulated in your scenario? Again, good luck. On the other hand, I will be following your work regarding sustainable agriculture. I’m assuming you have looked at indigenous agricultural technologies. Wish I had made better choices when I was younger. My lack of formal education frustrates me. I am also curious about the climate change psychology thing.
-
@malte yes, but what's an "average Danish person"?
I mean, if you set "Denmark" as the country here, https://emissions-inequality.org/national/, and look at the "Emissions Summary by National Income Groups", you read that in 2022 the most rich 0.1% emitted 180.38 tonnes per capita, the next 0.9 29.82, the next 9% 12.78, the middle 40% 8.36, the bottom 50% 5.50.@jones You just answered your own question.
-
@malte Curious as to why you would think that.
@mmm_kay Thanks, I appreciate the answer. And apologies for being so frank. I have zero tolerance for LMM use, so I get jumpy. To answer your question: Well, for one - I noticed your username, which is a bit ambiguous to me, but could mean that you're a regular user of chatbots ("AI"). Reading your answers I also noticed it went off in all kinds of other tangents, posting a lot of words about something I wasn't asking about - missing the point as it were, which is my experience with chatbots.
-
@mmm_kay Thanks, I appreciate the answer. And apologies for being so frank. I have zero tolerance for LMM use, so I get jumpy. To answer your question: Well, for one - I noticed your username, which is a bit ambiguous to me, but could mean that you're a regular user of chatbots ("AI"). Reading your answers I also noticed it went off in all kinds of other tangents, posting a lot of words about something I wasn't asking about - missing the point as it were, which is my experience with chatbots.
@malte Ha! The username is a quote from congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made in regards something Elon Musk said several months back. I thought it was funny then. Might be time for a change. Sorry about the tangents. I understand the question now. After reading a couple of your toots and blog posts, we share some values and passions. Our next conversation should start off a little less knee jerky.
