Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think a more useful metric is per unit of GDP. ...because then it becomes an efficiency metric. "How much wealth can we create with X amount of CO2".



I really don't see how this would be a good idea.

First of all it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress. It also implies that wealth creation is equivalent wherever it happens - that somehow if a place is more efficient at creating wealth than it should be privileged.

Finally, of course, this means that poorer countries that produce less wealth will almost certainly be less efficient by this metric, and hence should be penalized (of course, we shouldn't mention that a lot of their production actually ends up being consumed by the rich-world which can this way claim to be highly CO2 efficient).


> it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress

You misunderstand. The point is to quantify economic power. ...because economic power is the ONLY way fix global warming.


Well, we already have good measures for economic power, e.g. gdp. How would this extra measure help?


but then very poor countries will never be able to get to the development level of the rich countries because they’ll be energy limited. Buying a car (even if electric) could push them over the quota. Where as folks in the west can continue driving their giant SUVs.


Very poor countries developing western lifestyles isn't compatible with solving climate change.

The whole thing looks very gloomy to me.


Interestingly, China wins over North America and Europe on both metrics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: