I’d be really interested to see this broken down into carbon output by corporations vs individuals, and by the top 1% in wealth vs. everyone else - I bet it would be quite telling.
Ah, time for my daily “chart that would be better as a table”.
At least this time the visuals make sense
I’m sorry, I’m sorry, but I can’t cope with Turkey being the only country not written in English in this.
Their English name is officially Republic of Türkiye
What number is the letter ‘ü’ in the English alphabet?
21.5
It’s a letter U with an umlaut
Ok, at what position is the ‘u with an umlaut’ located in the English alphabet?
I mean, Motörhead was about as English as it gets. Do you have beef with them too?
Their ‘ö’ makes no sense whatsoever and is there for shits and giggles. Nothing about it is English. And I would hope that naming of countries has better reasoning.
What a naïve thing to say, clearly your resumé doesn’t include much on languages, letters, and loan words…
Before you talk to me about loanwords, you’ll have to tell me how the name of Czech writer, author of ‘Rossum’s Universal Robots’ is pronounced; and how the name of Slovenian neo-Marxist philosopher, author of ‘The Sublime Object of Ideology’ is pronounced.
Do I need to be proficient in Czech and Slovenian to point out that loanwords exist in the English language with letters and diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet? My point stands either way, and your response does nothing to address that. In fact, you’re kind of proving yourself wrong about Türkiye.
If I’m remembering correctly from my time in Czechia, Čapek would be pronounced “Chapek,” but I could be wrong and that still wouldn’t change the fact that English includes loanwords with diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet.
I haven’t been to Slovenia, so I can’t help you with Žižek. But again, that doesn’t change the fact that English includes loanwords with diacritics that aren’t in the English alphabet.
21, it’s still just the letter U even with an accent mark
Yeah no, 21 is ‘u’. It’s a different letter. Otherwise it wouldn’t be written differently.
Learn to read dumbass
In Turkish, French, or Finnish it is a different letter. In English it’s a subtype of a certain letter.
Different languages are different. Turkiye should be just fine, shiuld that feel better to you.
Very topsy-turvy world where European countries can be “coffee exporters” and claim better environmental practices than the countries they exploit
What coffee-producing country is higher than the European countries on that chart?
Well this is more about the land use policies that the Europeans push on them, but you can easily find workshops of them “instructed African farmers on better ecological practices” and shit like that. They write articles about the dangers of monocropping, pesticide use, etc, all practices their debt system demands to keep up. They insist these countries do not develop higher industry even car factories as it would be a carbon explosion, that’s been fixed with electric veh— But that would require background information, why not just attempt to gotcha me to misrepresent what I’m saying (the only thing anyone on here knows how to do)
But that would require background information, why not just attempt to gotcha me to misrepresent what I’m saying
I asked a simple question for clarification, that’s not a gotcha attempt. If you can’t answer it straightforwardly then maybe you gotcha-ed yourself.
I didn’t misrepresent what you were saying. You claimed this graphic says Europeans have better climate stats than exploited coffee-producing regions. It appears to show most European countries as having higher carbon emissions per capita than any coffee-producing country.
Did you misrepresent yourself in what you were trying to say, or are you misrepresenting the graphic? Because you still haven’t explained what you meant if it was something else, you just got defensive and complained about me asking you to clarify.
“It’s not a gotcha”—proceeds to interrogate the point that was already clarified. Eat my entire ass snookums
Not my fault if you never read a Guardian article about the chilling prospect of Africa industrializing in the past fifteen years. You had time
proceeds to interrogate the point that was already clarified.
You never clarified the point. And my last response wasn’t a continuation of the first, it was a response to your reply. So that doesn’t change the fact that my first response was not a gotcha attempt. My second was simply batting down your unnecessary hostility.
Not my fault if you never read a Guardian article about the chilling prospect of Africa industrializing in the past fifteen years.
This post isn’t about the guardian, it’s about an infographic that shows european nations among the biggest per-capita carbon emitters. The only coffee-producing country that I’m aware of that I see in the graphic is Indonesia, which is near the bottom. So how was your comment relevant?
And unless you provide a source to a Guardian article saying what you’re claiming, I’m just going to assume it’s bullshit. They’re not the torygraph…
Yes, it is interrogating the mangled point that assumes background info, instead of the clarification of what I meant + it’s in the spirit of pedantry not inquiry, you’re going back to what I said about emissions as if I’m literally implying these papers actually argue that Africa is already in same the position as semi-industrialized light manufacturing powers like Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, other areas that have developed some industry in order to make products for Western companies.
Fucking lunacy I’m not spoon feeding you all of The Guardian’s trademark ecofash articles https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/14/africa-gas-exploration-climate-disaster-un-reserves https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/pollutionwatch-africa-increases-reliance-fossil-fuels#comment-135267211 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/africa-future-coal-oil-renewables-water but here’s a few
If the alarmist framing “carbon bomb” doesn’t give it away here, it’s the future threat of Africa’s development destabilizing the western financial system that concerns them. Not chiefly what would happen climatologically if they started using a lot more fossil fuels in order to keep up with demands of globalization + their respective debt traps. Just look at migrant labor on farms and first world countries. These people aren’t interested in mechanization. They’re interested in slavery. They never seriously invested in the green technologies that would allow Africa to develop without this carbon bomb going off, instead they wrote articles about how green energy wasn’t economically viable. Why isn’t avoiding the apocalypse economically viable? You’ll find there’s only subtle difference between Tories and Labour or whatever tf you people have over there now on important issues.
On western conditions, “climate protection” projects have become a semi-successful recolonization strategy where NGOs control African land instead of its inhabitants. Global emissions are used as political leverage to achieve this. They talked about using western state funds & retirements to spread a large forest preserve across the Sahel—this was of course pre-AES revolutions. Echoes old school feudal land agreements writ large, meant to ensure resourceful regions remain backwaters
I didn’t mangle your point, your point was mangled when you made it. I asked for simple clarification, but instead of clarifying, you assumed my intentions and then got all hostile and mangled your point even more.
I’ve got plenty of qualms about the west, about the dominant economic systems, about exploitation worldwide, about inadequate climate action. But journalistic reporting on increases in coal power anywhere is not one of my qualms.
Good to know you support the fossil fuel industry, though. Thanks for playing.
NGL. One of the few times I’m proud to be British. Plenty more work to go though.
Ayyyy, just said the same thing lol
Damn, can’t remember the last time I was proud of the UK for something lol
This shows that data can be very misleading. Both India and China have huge rural subsistence farming populations that produce virtually no emissions
Yes, and yet the difference between them is a factor of 4.
Now, I don’t know this source. And I’m always sceptical of infographics. Does this include the fact that many other countries have their manufacturing in China?
I think this is probably a case where the median gives a far more complete picture than the average.
Per capita emissions do not accurately demonstrate total annual emissions amounts, but the average headline reader doesn’t understand that, making this infographic only partially useful.
It’s called multiplication…
And then division.
Also subtraction, in the case of less corrupt politicians
“This chart doesn’t properly convey the information it’s not designed to convey!”
Thanks for your input.
What woild you say shows better what the emissions of one person living in a country are?
Because that’s the only number you can use for comparing countries. The climate won’t be aaved by splitting China into one hundred independent countries. The largest producer of greenhouse gases would disappear from the statistics, but nothing about how much if those gases there are in the atmosphere would be chsnged.
