The way these data are presented it's extremely difficult not to draw Malthusian conclusions instead of socialist ones. I would very much like to know how many Earths the average worker in each of these countries would need if everyone lived like them.
There's two versions of the Malthusian takeaway: one being dramatic immiseration for people living in the imperial core and denying colonized countries the opportunity to raise their living standards, the likelier interpretation a "progressive" might have; and the other being that a race war/eco-apartheid against the global south/developing world is the only option.
So according to these recent World Bank data, nominal gross income per capita in the US was around $65k/year in 2019. This would mean anyone making around $13k/year after all the surplus value from rent, interest on debt, taxes, etc. are extracted is just about living within their means according to the Earth's carrying capacity. If your living standards are comparable to that of a McDonald's frycook or an adjunct barely making more than said frycook while also paying much more in student loan debt you might not have to worry about your living standards being lowered under a hypothetical global ecosocialism unless capitalists lower the Earth's carrying capacity by destroying even more of the biosphere, or unless any one of the G7 or BRIC countries reproduces significantly above-replacement rates.
I agree with this, but I want to specify: inefficiencies, as I imagine it, would include a great deal of the luxuries we enjoy but do not need. McMansions, SUV's, ridiculous suburban lawns, excessive electronic and clothing waste, etc, need to go. I'm betting that certain systems of measurement would consider the loss of these things as a decrease in the quality of life, but I do not. In fact, I think relinquishing luxuries of these kinds would do a great deal of good for most Americans.
And I don't want to be one of those consumerist wokescolds that attributes all climate change to the individual choices of people who do these things, the removal of these things will be the inevitable effect of a redistribution of power away from the McMansion-holders and towards others.
A benefit of hitting a plateau with a lot of electronics will be that people wont be replacing them anywhere near as much. If you look at new TVs and monitors they are at a point that refresh rate and resolution improvements are pointless as they have surpassed the average humans perception.
Most of the things that actually improve our day-to-day lives aren't even that resource intensive, in the grand scheme of things. If we made basic urban planning changes (no setbacks, narrow roads, no parking minimums) and built more trains around it, that would cover a lot of our waste.
And some people are writing books about wanting America to reach a billion people to ... checks notes ... keep up with China.
Hmm I wonder who is involved with this Global Footprint Network
BOARD CHAIRMAN, GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK; Keith Tuffley
Keith Tuffley is Global Co-Head of the Sustainability & Corporate Transitions Group at CITIbank. He provides advice to CEOs, CFOs, and Boards on transitioning their businesses towards a net-zero emissions and 100% sustainable future. He also advises on corporate strategy, innovation, M&A transactions, and sustainable finance solutions, to those companies that wish to take advantage of the opportunities created by the Sustainability Revolution.
Keith spent over 20 years in finance, investment banking and the capital markets. He has advised major corporations and governments in Australia and globally on corporate strategy, M&A transactions, equity capital raisings, valuations and privatisations. Keith served as Managing Director, Head of Investment Banking, and a Member of the Management Committee and the Board of Goldman Sachs in Australia. He was also based in London with Goldman Sachs as Head of the Industrials Sector Group across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
What about the nordic countries. They are often presented as the most sustainable countries, but I'm pretty sure it's bullshit.
Finn here, our number seems to be 3,6 earths. Sustainability means many things tho, and we're certainly one of the top countries in material recycling and planting forests. Other Nordic countries have their strengths, for example the geothermal energy in Iceland and wind power and car free city designs in Denmark. We all have remarkably clean air and nature too. But yeah, we're capitalist countries that have historically benefitted from imperialism, and we buy terrible amounts of unnecessary plastics and electronics from the other side of the planet and then throw them away next year when a new model is released. I try to be optimistic about future but it's not always easy.
idk its more just the companies are fucking shit over, an individual would have a barely noticeable change in daily activities
"Those dirty third worlders are wasting resources and pollutes everywhere" Shut the fuck up you funko pop buying motherfucker
is this ecofascist propaganda? cuz it certainly feels like it
is this ecofascist propaganda?
Considering the Top 11 is comprised of 10 'white' countries and every racist's favourite pet Asian country, I highly doubt it.
Ecofash propaganda never concerns itself with per-capita stats.
I think they may be counting oilgas production into the per capita emissions figures.
Russians still emit more than developed Asian countries though. Probably mostly due to meat consumption
Ahhh thanks! I think counting oil and gas production would totally explain it
Australia and America: Earth's scumiest dirtbags, always together.
Like the difference from 3 down are slivers of earth while Australia and the US are whole earths beyond everyone else.
All this time, and the Mormons & Scientologists turn out to be the ones with the real answers.
There are loads of carbon footprint calculators where you can answer questions about your lifestyle and find out how many earths we'd need if everyone lived like you.
They tend to be pretty grim if you live like the typical first worlder.
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx try it out. I got a 2.99! Almost sustainable.
Got 2.22 with the info I have(food taking up most of it).
Medication is covered fully by insurance, so can't calculate it, and I did not spend that much this year. But it still feels way to low for somebody who lives in a first world country and eats meat daily. Could be that I did not need any new electronics or clothes this year. Ontop of not owning a car and i've not flown in a plane in over a decade.
feels way too low
Yeah, I was 0.8 electricity, and 1.4 from food. I think you underestimate just how much most first world people spend yearly on clothes and etc. The average American throws away 70 pounds of clothing per year, and spends $269 monthly on entertainment.
I wonder if this adjusts Chinese carbon output to account for exports that are consumed in the West.
It probably doesn't. Russia and Australia are very high on this chart because they have a lot of oil and gas and mining. The pollution from those is assigned to the producers (Russia, Australia) instead of the consumers.
This company also halved the 'ecological capacity' of Australia from the bushfires that burned about 6 percent of forest so I guess you get the level of information from an infographic and you'd expect
If everyone lived like the Swiss we'd need a whole extra world just for old ugly guys sitting on logs smoking pipes
