Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DblDzl t1_ixl2d78 wrote

In other news, the sky is blue.

315

alexjones85 OP t1_ixl7chp wrote

It won't be if emissions are allowed to continue unabated.

138

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

crimsoncalamitas t1_ixll8nz wrote

literally not because of religion china, russia, and many western countries do that too

32

ppparty t1_ixlpjdt wrote

also, Cuba is pretty fucking repressive, but it's also incredibly sustainable and forward-looking

19

SturgiesYrFase t1_ixlqcjc wrote

They're also a bit less repressive than Qatar, at least in terms of LGBT rights

6

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

phenomduck t1_ixmnabz wrote

Being punished for the acts of the dead. Just plain cruelty.

2

glefe t1_ixlx1t7 wrote

The impact of emissions is not inherently about humans.

5

makeit52 t1_ixoi0sd wrote

This person talks like he’s trying too hard to sound smart.

2

IamreallynotaNPC t1_ixlb7v1 wrote

Yeah but why did they have use purple 3 damn times in the chart. Not sure which is gas, cement, and other.

Edit: Nevermind me.

10

_MuadDib_ t1_ixleqmj wrote

The colors are not great, but you might be color blind. The cement is not purple but teal.

18

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

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

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

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

LurkingChessplayer t1_ixlbpn1 wrote

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

36

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

majormajor42 t1_ixly88g wrote

1963, wow. Per capita all are coming down but…

Is flaring just wasting gas at the wells and refinery?

4

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

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

_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

gumol t1_ixl35v8 wrote

*in cherry picked country selection

15

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

Flaifel7 t1_ixl3gyx wrote

Plus, the Qatari population is tiny. This graph is per capita which is incredibly misleading.

−11

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

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

Flashwastaken t1_ixlsmmg wrote

I don’t understand your argument. Do you think that if you’re rich, you should be allowed to fuck the planet more?

7

Sol3dweller t1_ixl6u9i wrote

It's not confusing at all. I am pointing out that the metric of per-capita emissions is not misleading, but rather instructive. Highlighting that the rich with this high carbon emissions are far from sustainability.

Also, it is not a necessity that richer people have a higher carbon footprint. Compare Switzerland and Trinidad and Tobago, for example.

6

heisen204berg t1_ixl8qeq wrote

Anyone surprised by Australia like I am? 2nd?

15

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

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

mmarollo t1_ixlikiq wrote

Reasonable and accurate replies are not appreciated on Reddit. Please rewrite your response, but from a politically tribal POV.

5

Sexynarwhal69 t1_ixllm0h wrote

Yeah, if it wasn't for our mining industry, our emissions would be vastly lower. But we'd also have a GDP akin to indonesia

3

alexjones85 OP t1_ixlszdm wrote

It's actually mainly due to our agricultural sector if you're including methane emissions in the total greenhouse gas emissions. Land use change has created the greatest shift in overall carbon emissions so far.

My analysis so far see what you think?

https://youtu.be/qgyfnAhpFXY

1

alexjones85 OP t1_ixltfh6 wrote

Solid analysis. It does seem likely that we will shift quickly to renewables quickly now. Would love your thoughts on this clip I made?
https://youtu.be/qgyfnAhpFXY

2

Redvomit t1_ixlwlyn wrote

The sound mixing needs work. The music was so loud I couldn't really hear you talk so I turned it off. You should probably EQ your voice as well

4

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

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

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

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

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

Femistale t1_ixlagvp wrote

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

4

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

HoboAJ t1_ixltxuo wrote

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

2

davidtheexcellent t1_ixlyy8y wrote

A mix of things can be used or made from natural gas, fertilizer can and is one of Qatar's main exports.

3

jaytee158 t1_ixmqann wrote

It doesn't. It exports almost all of it.

Also hot countries do have high energy usage for things like air conditioning.

2

saltthefries t1_ixmhhdb wrote

They export most of their gas as LNG which has to be chilled to -254 F. That's where almost all of their emissions go.

1

DoctorWTF t1_ixnh3ua wrote

Yeah, fuck them, what would they need air conditioning for....

1

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

geek66 t1_ixmo7ml wrote

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

2

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

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

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

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

alexjones85 OP t1_ixnnfva wrote

Yeah analysing consumption as opposed to just production is a good point. Both should ideally be considered.

2

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

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

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

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

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

Digitalanalogue_ t1_ixmijsv wrote

…what does have to do with what Qatar is doing?

4

k-dot77 t1_ixmkarm wrote

Comment literally explains what it has to do with Qatar, there's a backstory and everything lol

−1

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

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

Digitalanalogue_ t1_ixnva1z wrote

Sure but you can still tell someone when something is wrong. Just because they were animals before doesnt mean their message is meaningless.

1

Legitswarmingurcross t1_ixmkkze wrote

What aboutism. Lets ignore this huge problem bcuz they used to do this, dogshit argument

2

k-dot77 t1_ixn0m7w wrote

Was never an argument, an observation. Criminals don't have a high horse to sit on, and that works both ways. No one is right, but no one is better.

0

user_x9000 t1_ixnha6d wrote

So? We should live in the past or learn from it and look at the future ?

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

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

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