This just in: Huge cold countries use more energy -> more pollution

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because of course it's meaningful to count in millions of frozen uninhabited square kilometers.

yes, thank you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I think the problem with this study is that pollution is calculated per capita, while I think it should be per square kilometer. (assumption)
We do much better in Europe, we _have to_ do much better, because our population density is much higher. If we'd pollute the same (per capita) as canadians, we'd have serious problems.

Still, progress to reduce environmental burden is a good progress, so I hope Canada will better its record nonetheless.

It's colder on average (much) and the distances are greater (massively).

No matter how you slice and dice it, we're never going to be less polluting than most any of the countries of the OECD.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, I claim the surface of some useless moon of Jupiter for US territory. Clearly that means the US is so much better on environmental issues because pollution/km^2 decreased a ton.

[Atahualpa]

That's not my point, I am happy when things get in favor of the environment.

[Dauphin]

XPosted

But toxic and noxious gases in the environment went through the roof.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well, I claim the surface of some useless moon of Jupiter for US territory. Clearly that means the US is so much better on environmental issues because pollution/km^2 decreased a ton.

Hell, you could select Io and it would still come down

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well, I claim the surface of some useless moon of Jupiter for US territory. Clearly that means the US is so much better on environmental issues because pollution/km^2 decreased a ton.

[notyoueither]

Re: XPosted

Originally posted by Dauphin
But toxic and noxious gases in the environment went through the roof.

I didn't read that. I read that they have remained high, not that they have increased markedly.

Although, some will have increased recently due to stepped up resource extraction (oil, among others). There's another problem with studies such as these. How many OECD countries are major resource exporters?

[Last Conformist]

When it comes to oil, only Canada and Norway, I believe, tho the US and the UK have very significant production.

[notyoueither]

And oil is just one part of it.

Our farms feed a pretty large chunk of the globe. Our wood builds houses for many people. Then there's minerals. All that takes fuel to produce, and then even more fuel to transport, sometimes thousands of miles, to the nearest port.

Now keep the people who get those resources for the world, and the rest of us, alive when it is sub zero (significantly sub in some places) for months at a stretch.

Oh, and they'll want TVs and other such stuff, so get goods back to them after transporting them thousands of miles.

You tell me how we're ever going to have pollutants per person lower than France, or any other OECD country.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: XPosted

Originally posted by notyoueither


I didn't read that. I read that they have remained high, not that they have increased markedly.

I was refering the idea of claiming Jovian territory to reduce US environmental pollution figures.

[notyoueither]

Duh. OK.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You tell me how we're ever going to have pollutants per person lower than France, or any other OECD country.

Just find someone sufficiently wasteful to compare to.

[notyoueither]

Like Belguim? I'm scratching my head about that.