Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DblDzl t1_ixl2d78 wrote

In other news, the sky is blue.

315

gumol t1_ixl35v8 wrote

*in cherry picked country selection

15

Flaifel7 t1_ixl3ezm wrote

This can be replaced with electric power and nuclear power plants. As more and more companies build electric cars, Qataris will adopt them and the Qatari government has the money to invest in new energy infrastructure when they need to. They represent a tiny percentage of emissions. Per capita they are high but Qatar has less than 3 million people.

11

Sol3dweller t1_ixl589e wrote

Hm, here is the table on per-capita CO2 emissions of all countries.

Qatar still takes the lead there in 2021 (here are the top 3):

  • Qatar: 35.59 tons (+38% compared to 1990)
  • Bahrain: 26.66 tons (+11% compared to 1990)
  • Kuwait: 24.97 tons (+11% compared to 1990)

World average: 4.69 tons (+10% compared to 1990).

Average of high income countries: 10.27 tons (-16% compared to 1990).

Goal we need to reach: less than 2 tons.

13

Sol3dweller t1_ixl5hqh wrote

Why should a tiny minority be granted the luxury of having excessive carbon emissions? (This doesn't only apply to Qatari but all "rich" people with high carbon emissions.)

Per-capita emissions aren't misleading, at least if your aim is a just society based on equal rights.

21

Flaifel7 t1_ixl5m8f wrote

It’s universal that the richer you are the higher your carbon footprint. Including rich people from USA or any other country. Now qatar is one of the richest nations per capita and so it would make sense their emissions would match that. What’s so confusing?

−3

ignost t1_ixl63dp wrote

Qatar is indeed not a model for a sustainable future. It's one of the worst in terms of sheer wastefulness and not giving a shit. I'd feel better if my country, a large western nation with plenty of resources, could at least acknowledge the problem on both sides of the aisle. We can look down on Qatar, but in the case of the US and Australia we're looking down from a stepping stool.

62

alexjones85 OP t1_ixl78ca wrote

Not necessarily Sweden, Singapore, and France all enjoy some of the highest standards of living and GDP per capita but don't have anywhere near the same levels of carbon emissions. My own own home country of Australia is not far away from Qatar. It is almost triple those other nations but still less than half the Qatar emissions.

8

omdano t1_ixl7maj wrote

Does the per capita only account for citizens? or does it include the migrant population in the statistic?

Since Qatar has approx 2.1 Million citizens, this will affect the results.

1

Moikee t1_ixl84a6 wrote

A country full of the ultra wealthy that don’t give a shit about the environment or consequences of their actions? Shocker

30

heisen204berg t1_ixl8qeq wrote

Anyone surprised by Australia like I am? 2nd?

15

internetperson94276 t1_ixl9yga wrote

Ah yes. Emissions are the problem here, clearly. Not, you know, the entire religious dogma that informs and entitles the people to continue perpetuating and celebrating horrific human rights abuses out in the open.

−121

Femistale t1_ixlagvp wrote

I don't understand how they didn't reinvest all that oil money into something else.

4

LurkingChessplayer t1_ixlbpn1 wrote

It’s actually way down if you look at it historically for Qatar

36

Jampine t1_ixldvge wrote

The Australian government has been deep in the pockets of coal and oil industries for years, so the point they've suffocated wind and solar development despite being literally the world's largest desert island.

They've also been really obtrusive about electric vehicles, and put bullshit rules in sce to try and block them, in a government act called "FFS".

No, really.

26

GQManOfTheYear t1_ixldzf9 wrote

What's not looking good is your title. They're an oil exporting nation. By definition, they deal in exporting oil. If this was a race toward cleaner energy, America would be at the bottom.

−4

Redvomit t1_ixlg6wx wrote

No, not really. This is such a reductive and misinformed argument.

Australia deals with a triple whammy of large distances, arid climate and low population density. We have high emissions per capita, largely because of mining and agriculture which is primarily exported. We don't have a manufacturing industry of significance, so renewable infrastructure has to be imported. We don't have nuclear energy, though we were an early adopter of hydropower (in the few places where it works).

People will criticise a lot of countries without understanding the drivers, and realistic policies affecting renewable adoption. Australia will switch to renewables fairly quickly as the tech matures, but I'd be wary of people who think the reasons can be easily explained by politics alone.

13

IamreallynotaNPC t1_ixlglsc wrote

Ahhh. Yeah... I am colorblind... didn't realize. Thanks for pointing that out. Feel like a buffoon. Idk how but I have a hard time with purple and green and the darker it is the harder it is to tell.

Anyway thank you for telling me.

Edit: If I shut off my blue filter I can tell the difference. Not a ton, but yeah the blue filter isn't helping in that sense. Mentally noted.

18

Hackmource t1_ixlkt7t wrote

A giant solar farm was just recently inaugurated which can supply 10% of peak electricity usage. There have also been a lot of investment into electric cars in the shape of putting up a lot of charging areas at metro stations and places of interest.

5

nkj94 t1_ixlr4jc wrote

It accounts for the total population of ~3 Million and Not just the Citizens population of ~300k

Total emissions: 95.67 Mt, Total population: 2.93 m, Per capita emissions 32.65 t

3

alexjones85 OP t1_ixltuu1 wrote

Australia is always slow to the party. It seems we often have to wait for big bro America to lead the charge. Quite literally when it comes to electric vehicles ;) ;)

But it seems like the political powers are starting to realise coal and gas won't last forever so we need to find new resources to export. This could happen with renewable power to places like Singapore. Uranium for nuclear reactors. And battery raw materials such nickel and lithium.

1

HoboAJ t1_ixltxuo wrote

Why does a country that's so damn hot use so much natural gas?

2

alexjones85 OP t1_ixlu56p wrote

Yep true! Norway did and now they have the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world! The citizens of the country are all essentially stockholders in their fossil fuel resource. Now they can use that massive capital to invest in more sustainable technologies. Pretty genius from a purely economic perspective.

7

alexjones85 OP t1_ixluob8 wrote

Yeah historical/cumulative emissions is a definite factor but hopefully shouldn't be used as a get out of jail card either. Developed nations definitely need to support sustainable infrastructure in developing countries. It seems like Qatar is now far more on the developed than the developing side of the equation.

14

alexjones85 OP t1_ixlv9v2 wrote

Utility solar tends to provide power when the sun is high and not during hours of peak demand which is normally from 7-10am and 4-9pm. But I could be wrong for Qatar weather and demand cycles. Where are you getting this figure of 10% of peak electricity from?

0

ppparty t1_ixm2dip wrote

oh yeah, Cubans themselves are very very socially progressive. Frankly, as someone born behind the Iron Curtain myself, we've never thought of Cuba as "communist like us", I've always had the impression they were kinda pushed into it by the needless US antagonizing and that's how it still is today.

7

DeepTh0tt t1_ixm40r8 wrote

Qatar was nothing before Oil, and will be nothing after Oil. Unless it suddenly creates a non-oil industry we'll watch it decline as the world moves away from Oil.

0

Xyooon t1_ixm5t9s wrote

1963, 120t per capita in Qatar wtf??

How is the jump from 4,2t in 1962 to 120t in 1963 explained?

The historical figures for the per capita emissions are wild

2

cervidaetech t1_ixm75id wrote

They already didn't look good as slave driving murderers and theocratic nutjobs either

2

k-dot77 t1_ixmcrhy wrote

The westerners on here willing to overlook their genocide of natives, butchering of slaves, slave trade, rampant insurance corruption, minimum wages that are under poverty lines,

just say "hey....they....they're doing the thing....they can't do that we already did it".

Remember the UK had TRADE ROUTES for legitimate slave trade sanctioned by the east India trading co.

0

Efficient_Comment_50 t1_ixmizkb wrote

I will not sleep tonight… people trying to point fingers. Let’s start with Germany killing millions, Russia another millions, France uncountable, Spain and Portugal another uncountable number of natives. And now a retarded getting crazy because the Qatar is producing the gas to run the factories and comfortable houses in Germany and all the heck Europe. HYPOCRITES!!! Don’t listen them.

−2

geek66 t1_ixmo7ml wrote

The less people have to do with the creation of their wealth - the less they respect what they have.

2

Digitalanalogue_ t1_ixmobr9 wrote

Yeh but its the equivalent of me having been in jail for armed robbery telling other people not to rob a store. Just because the west did bad things doesnt mean they dont have a point. Challenge their motivations not the message.

1

cchiu23 t1_ixmzotj wrote

I don't like Qatar either but its unfair IMO to count exports of Oil and Gas as fossil fuel use when they aren't burning it themselves

1

k-dot77 t1_ixn1yvh wrote

Not really, "bad things" doesn't summarize centuries most criminal behavior in history. It is not the same.

A better analogy would be you having murdered, raped, pillaged and become rich off of hundreds of innocent lives, and THEN telling someone not to rob a store.

Qatar could take a lesson on morality, but not from the west. The west does not have a high horse to sit on.

I have nothing against the modern western world but I have something to say about hypocrisy.

1

olalof t1_ixn6r5x wrote

Are they counting everyone or just citizens? Big difference.

1

white-rose-0 t1_ixnhcxs wrote

Isn’t the chart misleading since oil production is considered a burden of the producing country in this graph? But much of this oil is actually exported to western economies for burning.

1

mr_j936 t1_ixnlzxi wrote

To be fair, it's a desert country, where the only water is desalinating salt water which is very energy consuming, and the AC has to be on all year otherwise you'd die... So yeah...

1

HankRivera t1_ixnofz3 wrote

Post this on /r/qatar and take cover for „Whatabout…, West bad, Qatar good, suppressing Muslims, western arrogance, but Israel, but USA, but Nazis!” and so on.

2

vladimir_pimpin t1_ixnqv4f wrote

I mean idk which country you’re from but the US has passed legislation and funding for 40% CO2 reduction by 2030. Seems like we’re allowed to at least look at a graph and be like “huh, that’s a lot of CO2 per capita

2

RDMvb6 t1_ixnur7v wrote

I would really like to know what part of their emissions are due just to residential and commercial air conditioning. I know their total emissions are very high but if they literally implemented every energy conservation method know to man, they still have to cool their homes to something less hot than the third layer of hell. They will probably always be towards the top of this list but that is at least partially unavoidable due to their location in a very hot area.

0

Osamaseemo t1_ixo0o9e wrote

I know this comment probably will not be seen by many but I will write it anyway.
this data doesn't mean anything, why? imagine if you build a whole country, roads, schools, hospitals and so on; and then you put just 10 people to live that country. the Co2 per capita will be so high, if 10,000 lived in the same country the Co2 per capita will be so low. and that what is happening here.
So what is this data mean? it means that Qatar is a developed country with small population which is true.
Co2 per capita is not useful in very small nation and also in very large nation

1

gigglegoggles t1_ixogkf9 wrote

Usually if they are not capturing the gas it is because the economics just don’t work out.

On the extraction side, it’s usually a matter of not being close enough to pipelines/infrastructure.

On the refinery side, flare systems typically connect a variety of units and are there for emergency venting during a process upset. Because the gases come from multiple product streams, they need to be separated to be sold or are just used as fuel for the furnaces. In either case, for the time and effort, refiners are usually better off trying to reduce system upsets.

It is a shame what we do to our environment and it is wasteful.

Source: used to work for a refiner.

4

ignost t1_ixohkbs wrote

Come on, at no point did I remotely attempt to tell you what you're allowed to think. I applaud any progress too. This is just what I think: that we in the US have had the resources to do much better, and I wish we were further along today. Same for Australia. And I really wish a large portion of the country wasn't so anti science that they don't even agree that man made climate change is even a thing.

−1

BilingualThrowaway01 t1_ixoiexu wrote

I mean, they're currently using huge air conditioners to cool down OUTDOOR STADIUMS. They really don't give a fuck about sustainability.

1

ScoobiusMaximus t1_ixowiuv wrote

His argument may be reductive but it isn't untrue. Australia could make great use of solar installations for energy generation at a local level regardless of how remote places are, and wind in a lot of places as well. The Australian government has been a major obstacle to progress in regards to any form of climate action.

1

_CHIFFRE t1_ixp66yw wrote

yep surely if we cut out some super wealthy part of the Usa and look at per capita emissions we'd see the same.

would actually be a good idea, Co2 Emissions by County or City in the Usa, probably not possible though..

1