April 15, 2008
Moving the Goalposts

Mike P. gets a no-prize that will squirm impressively when the data go wrong for bringing us yet another watermelon proclamation about global climate change:

China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.
...
"Our figures for emissions growth are truly shocking," [Dr Max Auffhammer, the lead researcher] said.

"But there is no sense pointing a finger at the Chinese. They are trying to pull people out of poverty and they clearly need help.

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

Absolutely! No problem! Let me go get my checkbook, just let me know who to write it out to.

Just because you're smart about one thing does not make you smart about everything, eh?

Posted by scott at April 15, 2008 12:43 PM

eMail this entry!
Comments

Yes - I can see where one of the largest economies in the world needs to be given more stuff for free.

They can buy the technology if they want. That they don't is rather telling, no?

Another point of interest is looking at the animated map included in the article. If you click on total emissions, we jump up there, as does China and Europe (as an aggregate). But, if you then click on emissions per person, we shrink rapidly and Europe gets much bigger. Hell, it almost appears that the UK and Ireland pollute to a higher degree per person than the US does.

Maybe someone should be removing the plank from their own eye, eh?

Posted by: Ron on April 15, 2008 01:03 PM

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

And further highly funded research.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins on April 15, 2008 04:26 PM

It still mystefies me why people ascribe so much more import to anything measured "per capita." It grossly overinflates human influence over almost any statistic, which I suppose appeals to the egocentric nature of people, but also leads to some hilariously bad science, not to mention lots of convenient goalpost moving, as China's reaction demonstrates.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on April 17, 2008 01:42 PM

Per capita measurements among otherwise similar population groups (if it's economics, the similarity should be economic, if it's social, the similarities should be social) are very telling measurements - but between grossly different groups such as China v USA does lack much in the way of significance.

If someone were to measure the murder rates per capita of say, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston that measurement would hold lots of water. But the same comparison between say, Venezuala and and Florida - maybe not so much.

Posted by: ron on April 17, 2008 04:21 PM

There is also the fact that murder is an act carried out by individual people, for the most part, so deriving it per capita makes sense if you want to get a fair estimate of the success or failure of social programs. The overwhelming majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, however, are generated by communal activities like driving cars or operating power plants. Measuring them per capita is like measuring atmospheric pressure over the entire universe... an entertaining exercise, but far too skewed by the presence of interstellar void to be useful for much of anything.

People like to measure the number of Olympic medals won per capita too, which not only presumes that every single individual in an entire nation's population is somehow involved in the training of each athlete, but also leads to the nation of Micronesia, by virtue of having won a single gold medal and having a population five digits long, to take the lead of that chart now and forever, unless some other flyspeck island also scores a gold.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on April 17, 2008 05:25 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?