Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
It's the same as using GHG per capita. Waste, like pollution, is not diluted by number of people. A tonne of waste is a tonne of waste, no matter which side of the artificial line on a map you live on.
The use of per capita in cases like this is deliberately disingenuous, and is specifically designed to give the appearance that large population centres aren't nearly as bad.
|
I agree with you (but reach the opposite conclusion). Waste, like pollution, is certainly not diluted by number of people. Indeed, waste, like pollution, is created and caused by people. And people benefit from the activities which create and cause waste (and pollution). This is precisely why per capita is the most reasonable way to discuss these issues.
For example, if Alberta separated from the rest of Canada, in purely raw numbers, people living in Alberta would suddenly produce much, much less waste (roughly 90% less than when they were people living in Canada). However, this is meaningless when discussing a global issue of too much waste. Albertans (in this scenario) did not become any more efficient and (all other things remaining equal) would continue to produce the same amount of per capita waste (and continue to contribute to the problem in the same way as before). Albertans would also continue to enjoy all of the benefits of their waste-producing activities.
Are we really going to tell poor people in India that you shouldn't produce any more waste (and shouldn't engage in all of the beneficial waste-producing activities like industry, consumer consumption, etc) because India produces large raw amounts of waste but the residents of Monaco may continue buying super-yachts and drinking bottled water because Monaco produces tiny raw amounts of waste? Does that strike anyone as fair or just?