• Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Talking about “planet wreckers” but leaving out coal is either incredibly stupid or deceitful. Nevermind that consumption is where the blame should be laid, not production.

  • Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is obivously not the actual point of the map, but why have a bunch of countries in Central Africa merged? It looks like Angola, both Congos, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        They are actually there in the report… but barely. They’re much lighter than every other border. It doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere so I assume it was just a mistake

  • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This is so niche… Not current production, not future production, not emissions, just the difference between production now and production later seemingly designed to give the middle east and Venezuela a pass because they’re already producing a crazy amount

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s essentially a map of big countries (population, territory, population density…)

    This map would be way more interesting if it was normalized per capita or some other meaningful denominator. Only then does it make sense to point fingers.

    • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s about future oil and gas expansion (FOGE), what matters to the atmosphere is the total - identifying potential threat. Effectively multiplying FOGE by area (as shown) doesn’t make sense, but neither does FOGE per capita (as most is exported, not consumed locally). I’d suggest just a sized blob for each country - then can show some other dimension with the color.

    • Specal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      UK has a higher population than Canada but had a lower rating on this scale. So that’s not strictly true.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not to mention India and China vs. the US

        Total emissions would tell a different story but population is not the only factor here

        • Specal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          A few of the dimwits I work with use china alot as a reason to not do anything about climate change because they keep building coal plants but… The coal plants they build are more efficient.

          According to this chart the UK is doing well but we can still do better and we should keep doing more.

    • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      China and India have 5 times the population of the USA, and yet are 1 order of magnitude or more below the USA. You’re not making sense here