Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Changing where you place the line on a map doesn't change how much waste is created. As you argued, we don't become more efficient in Alberta if we cast off the rest of Canada. The total waste in the region that makes up the former undivided nation of Canada would be unchanged. As would global totals.
|
Right. So how does this support your position that state-level raw totals are more useful than per capita data? In this hypothetical scenario, the per capita data more accurately reflects the situation on the ground (ie, the per capita waste creation of Albertans would remain relatively unchanged whereas the state-level raw total produced by "Alberta" would be significantly less than the state-level raw total produced by the former "Canada").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Yup. And that circles us right back to the per capita problem: we use it disingenuously to give the appearance that fully developed economies are virtually the entire problem while developing economies with high populations are not. So while waste creation in India and China grows and grows, we here in Canada (and even, more ridiculously, places like Finland) get to be demonized despite creating a tiny fraction of same.
|
No, I totally disagree with your characterization "disingenuously to give the appearance that fully developed economies are virtually the entire problem while developing economies with high populations are not." We use per capita data to reflect the fact that people living in states with fully developed economies
are indeed the biggest problem. I think that is true. And yes, waste creation in India and China will continue to grow as standards of living continue to rise closer to the standards of living in those states with fully developed economies (again, the two are directly related).
This is precisely why the states with fully developed economies are the ones which need to show leadership on this issue.