The per capita statistic is useless and misleading - especially for CO2 emissions

It tells you, How much per person, therefore the total output can be calculated by multiplying the per capita by the population.

It is a statistical guide to each countries CO2 output based on the population size.

If the government said tomorrow, that they were going to compensate parents for the price of school uniforms, and give each family $200 per week. Your neighbor has 1 child, and you had 4. He gets $200 each child and you get $50, wouldn't a payment per head be better, or as they say in Latin, per capita?

 

Uhh, yeah, this isn't an argument either. Do you have anything to counter with or can we agree your argument has been refuted?

 

Why is a duck?

 

Please tell us how the per capita statistic is relevant in the real world.

 

Maybe it would be easier if you showed us a better way, say to calculate which country, is better off financially in real terms in your unreal world out of say, China, the USA, England and Australia. If for instance you were thinking of moving to it.

 

Are you people stubborn or just stupid? This is like the fourth or fifth time I've repeated myself now.

"Per capita is used to account for a countries population when comparing statistics."

It's relevant when comparing statistics from different countries. Why is this so hard for you people to understand?

 

Financially? I thought the ACC swindle was supposed to be about carbon output? No? If the issue was carbon output, you would be concerned about carbon emission, wouldn`t you? If you truely believed that carbon emissions were about to destroy the world as we know it, wouldn`t you be railing against the greatest growth areas for carbon emission on the planet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-energy-bp-emissions-idUSTRE75728120110608

Why would you be compalcent, about the greatest areas of carbon output growth on the planet?

Why muck around with irrelevant little diversions like per capita output of Australia? Even when you do go down this dead end road, you fail to mention the circumstances of this country that contribute to a high carbon output. Why is that?

I believe, that if you were genuinely prepared to listen, you would find that people who love this country are perplexed by these, and other irregularities.

- - - Updated - - -

It would only be relevant, if all countries being compared, had equal circumstances. Otherwise, per capita is a complete WOFTAM.

 

Per capita is when populations are not equal, if every country had the same population THEN per capita would be useless. I said what you just said, a large proportion of China's CO2 output is because of us, the per capita of CO2 output is not a good way to do it, the affect each country has on CO2 should be based on their per capita use of manufactured goods.

If China was to put a tax on CO2, we would feel it. Look at everything you buy that is made in China, they all would be more expensive so yes China, bring on the Carbon Tax, if we asked them to do that without having one ourselves, it would seem very hypocritical though. But now we can put pressure on them, but wait, that will increase the cost of everything here from cars to clothes to Australia Day Flags.

- - - Updated - - -

But this still does not mean that per capita figures are irrelevant, except to those that have no idea.

 

We already know the total volume by country we dont need to divide it by its population??!!

That is such a silly example Dom

Are we talking about dependant children or independant what about couples that are childless??

silly example

- - - Updated - - -

Again a silly example are you saying that GDP is distributed evenly as the per capita statistic suggests???

 

What meanigful statistic does it give you?

- - - Updated - - -

What meanigful statistic does it give you?

- - - Updated - - -

What meanigful statistic does it give you?

 

No, that is not what it means at all and anyone who thinks it is, is really dumb. How in the fark does it suggest that, this is what amazes me the most. If I said the sky is blue, am I suggesting trees are? That is as stupid an assumption.

It is, IF it was evenly distributed. I asked my 96 year old father what per capita meant, he got it correct, he left school 84 years ago in year 6, primary school. I asked him does per capita imply that the money or CO2 is distributed evenly. He laughed, thanks dumb, you have given Dad a laugh. No he said, who thinks that?

- - - Updated - - -

No, that is not what it means at all and anyone who thinks it is, is really dumb. How in the fark does it suggest that, this is what amazes me the most. If I said the sky is blue, am I suggesting trees are? That is as stupid an assumption.

It is, IF it was evenly distributed. I asked my 96 year old father what per capita meant, he got it correct, he left school 84 years ago in year 6, primary school. I asked him does per capita imply that the money or CO2 is distributed evenly. He laughed, thanks dumb, you have given Dad a laugh. No he said, who thinks that?

 

One last time my head is getting sore banging it against the wall, Not real figures but a demonstration.

We have two countries, X and Y. X has a GDP of 17 trillion dollars, Y has a GDP of 17 billion dollars, which country is the best off.

 

If I haven't given you enough information to answer the question, ask for what you need to answer it.

- - - Updated - - -

If I haven't given you enough information to answer the question, ask for what you need to answer it.

 

Thank you for your post. Australia and China are in many ways, at opposite ends of the spectrum, eg., I drive 78 kilometers to work. This isn`t too uncommon in Australia on a per capita basis, but it would be in China. If the aim is to reduce carbon output, countries like ours need time to adapt, while developing countries need to plan their development according to low carbon producing methods.

 

This argument has already been refuted. I suggest reading the thread because you have been given multiple examples on the usage of the word per capita and how it is "relevant".

I answered this on page five.

"The statistic that takes a countries population into account. "

 

The bottom line is that the per capita statistic is dividing anything by the population.

It could be the dimples on a golf ball.

It could be the hairs on your head, regardless,

it’s meaningless junk, it gives you no meaningful data other than distributing whatever you’re diving into the size of the population.

Whhopi dooooo??!!??!! - hard to get existed over meanigless junk.

Imo the per capita statistic was derived by economists to confuse the general population.

What does it mean to the average man when Gillard says GDP per capita is $230,000.

What sort of sense can the average person make of this statistic what does it tell him about his situation and position in the economy?

Absolutely ZIP, but he’s left scratching his head thinking sounds ok $230,000.

Like for example Julia Gillard uses the per capita statistic to show that Australia is one of the worst polluters on Earth.

SHE NEVER EVER has mentioned that our total annual CO2 emissions are only 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

EVER NEVER EVER NEVER??!! Who has heard her say anything other than per capita??!!??!!

NOT ONCE HAVE I HEARD HER SAY IT??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!....NOT ONCE SHE IS SUCH A BIG LIAR, SHE HAS BEEN LIEING TO AUSTRALIANS SINCE BEFORE SHE BECAME PM.

All she says is PER CAPITA WE ‘RE ONE OF THE WORST POLLUTERS in the world, it benefits a liar to use the per capita statistic cause it confuses those they don’t know what per capita is, it twists and distorts the overall picture.

Do you think she would be egged and have tomatoes thrown at her if she stood up and said to all Australians.

Fellow Australians we only emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 pollution so I’m giving you guys the most expensive carbon tax of any nation on Earth??!!??!!

I have to make sure that Australia does her bit to ensure bankers will get their ticket or cake and eat it too??!!??!!

You guys are really pathetic sometimes, even when you hear it from the horses mouth you turn a blind eye.

Let’s look at the per capita statistic to see what sense we can make of it, figures are rounded for simplicity.

All manmade CO2 emissions are about 30 gigatonnes (30,000,000,000) or 30 billion tones per annum so we are told by alarmists OK I will work with that even though I don’t agree with the figure.

Australia emits 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions

1.5% of 30,000,000,000 = 450,000,000 tonnes per annum (that’s 450 million tonnes per annum)

Australia’s population is approximately 22,500,000, (22.5 million)

Therefore

450,000,000 / 22,500,000 = 20 tonnes per capita (per head) or for each person be it new born, pensioner or anywhere in-between we emit 20 tonnes per person.

China emits 22% of all manmade CO2 emissions

22% of 30,000,000,000 = 6,600,000,000 tonnes per annum (that’s 6 billion & 600 million tones per annum)

China’s population is approximately 1,344,000,000, (1.344 billion)

Therefore

6.600,000,000 / 1,344,000,000 = 4.91 tonnes per capita (per head) or for each person be it new born, pensioner or anywhere in between China emits 4.91 tonnes per person.

So what have we done we have divided the CO2 emissions of Australia and China by their respective population.

So what does the per capita statistic tell us,

It tells us that for every Australian, Australia produces 20 tonnes of CO2.

But let’s look at some facts

• For every Australian there is nearly 60 Chinamen
• So we have a much smaller population hence the higher value
• Australia probably has less power generating facilities than China
• Australia is a western nation with a good standard of living, some Australians are trying to take

Australia back to the standard of living China has today, as is evident by some posters on here.

• Australia only produces 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions

It also tells us that for every Chinaman, China produces 4.9 tonnes of CO2.

But let’s look at some facts

• Obviously China has a much bigger population

• Even though they may have many more times the power generators we have

• China is trying to get to where Australia is with respect to a standard of living, the Chinese people are not stupid like some other nations, they will stop at nothing to make their lives better and easier as per 21st century living. Watch out a giant has woken.

• China produces 22% of all manmade CO2 emissions

CONCLUSION

What meaningful statistic or information can we walk away with after having worked out that

Australia’s CO2 emissions are 20 tonnes per capita

AND

China’s CO2 emissions are 4.91 tonnes per capita

Just looking at the last three lines above I would have to say sweet fark all.

 

Wow, there was a lot of garbage to sift through in that post. Please keep it succinct and try to limit your ranting.

It has been explained to you multiple times how it is important to use per capita when comparing statistics that require you to take other countries populations into account. What you and aussie2ride or whatever his name is are suggesting on here is so ridiculous and stupid that I can't even find it being regurgitated elsewhere on the internet. You two are literally on your own here

Well yeah, of course you think people are left scratching their heads as you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. That figure isn't supposed to tell you anything about your situation in the Australian economy. It's for economists to use when they need to take a countries population into account when comparing GDP's. Seriously mate, I've told you this over 5 times now. Stop behaving like a child.

Think about it for a second. You could have a very big country, like America, who have a huge GDP but also a very large population. Then you have a country like Qatar, a much much smaller country with a much smaller GDP. Now, pay attention, this is where you get confused....This looks all well and good, ok, America is waaay richer than Qatar, their GDP is much higher, but this is flawed because it hasn't taken into account the differences in population. Using per capita we suddenly realize that Qatar's ratio of GDP per person is much higher than America's and that America's only looks richer because the populations haven't been factored in yet. Once you consider the ratio per person it gives you a completely new, and pertinent, perspective on the different countries economies. It really is a very simple concept.

 

You know us aussies are pretty good at thinking outside the box thats except for you and Dom.

Point out what is garbage?

It is important to take other countries populations into account??!!

Then without looking at any other facts & figures what does this tell you?

ROFL the per capita statistic is the most ridiculed statistic on the internet!
You really have to step outside the box now and again.

I thought i just explained it to you here, do you find something wrong with my explanation?

Economists you say, comparing GDPS you say no wonder the world economy is farked when they use meanigless statistics to compare nations.

I've thought about it for more than a second.

Would you pick a country to live in from the GDP per capita statistic??




.

 

Poor old Lepper.

 

Hey Lep

I'll meet you in liechtenstein, bring some drinking money????

Can you speak any German or French?

 

Instead of wasting my time on your dribble I'll just post a link that should satisfy all parties, while still showing your argument to be inaccurate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/The-importance-of-GDP-per-capita

As you can see for the umpteenth time, per capita clearly is useful. This article also touches on some faults with per capita as an "economic tool", albeit none of these are of the severity that you have been ranting about and trying to claim for the last seven pages

- - - Updated - - -

Nice one

 

Hey Lep

The crux of the arguement is that the per capita statistic tells you SFA, how is it that you dont understand that!

Quoting GDP per capita or CO2 emissions per capita,

Is about as usefull as quoting dimples in a gold ball per capita.

In isolation it tells you NOTHING of importance or value its just a number divided by the population.

Thats why Gillard uses it so much, cause the bottom line is we only emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions now if she was to stand up and keep telling us we only emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions she would be egged and booed of stage for giving us the most expensive carbon tax in the world.

 

Big Jules should be booed off stage for insulting people`s inteligence with the per capita BS.

 

Im getting sick of your ignorant posts, if you don't understand what per capita means now, I do not think you will ever understand much at all really.

This tells me that Australia produces CO2 emissions that if ... note the if, it was divided equally among the population it would equate to 20 tonnes for every person living in Australia. Of course every person in Australia in Australia does not produce 20 tonnes, and anyone who interpreted it that way would be dumb. They would be dumber if they tried to argue this fact, especially if they used frogs and macdonalds hamburgers to stuff their strawman, you use straw for that. It also tells me that in China, the CO2 emissions would only be 4.991 tonnes for each person if, note the if it was divided equally among the population.

Now most of us can see that 20 is less than 4.991 but most of us know that there are many more people in china so the total output of CO2 in China would be many many more times than that in Australia.

Any sane and even primary school educated person would tell you that per capita has nothing to do with dividing things up among the population, nor does it imply any ownership nor responsibility for it, it is purely a way of comparing the same thing, CO2 output, GDP, Crime statistics, disease prevalence and many many more things, between countries, or states or cities that have vastly different populations.

It gives people with intelligence an idea of the problem; for instance, if China was to increase its CO2 to the same as ours it would be astronomical and also if we were to reduce ours to that of China it would be in significant. Of course other factors need to be considered when intelligent people use these figures. For example it is fairly common knowledge that the majority of Chinese live many many times a standard of life than do Australians. It is also common knowledge that in Australia we import more manufactured goods then we export, and that the majority of our exports are from China, therefore the per capita figures would be higher for Australia and lower fo China if this was not the case, and many times higher for Australia and irrelevant for China if the situation was reversed.

So intelligent people use per capita figures because with primary school mathematics you can determine the total output, per capita x population, with common sense you can see the discrepancies but overall it gives you a good picture of what would happen if things changed.

Not many people would be stupid enough not to know this so the per capita figure has been used for centuries by just about anyone with any sort of a brain to compare and predict and adjust things on a level playing field.

The only, only risk of using per capita is that some idiots get it all confused, or worse deliberately misuse the figures to confuse peop;le or to build strawmen so as to argue a point that they have very little or no other evidence for which to support their position.

Just between you and me, some idiots even go to the bother of creating topics on forums to denounce the value of per capita figures because they cannot find any sane, reasonable or significant facts to debate the topic in the first instance.

Now as you can see, yes per capita figures do tell me heaps and I would definitely use them if moving to another country.

I wouldn't use the CO2 production figures though, but if I was looking at comparisons I would look at things like the GDP per capita to get an idea, remember it's an if statement, how much the GDP is per person.

I would look at the CPI, again a statistical figure, and does not mean any more or any less then a way of statistically comparing things, but gives me a guide..guide.. note that word, guide as to the cost of living. It doesn't tell me how much the cost of living is, but it allows me to determine which country is better.

I would look at the crime statistics, now these hopefully are not per capita because I would hope that each country had figures where the crimes were lower than the population so with crime statistics they are usually published on a per hundred thousand basis, like 5 murders per hundred thousand is better than 20 murders per hundred thousand (put away your calculator it's 4 times better) which in theory means you have 4 times more chance of being murdered. The per capita figures here would be 0.0004 per capita vs 0.00020 per capita but then any fool can see that.

So in answer to your question I would look at those figures, per capita GDP, the CPI, the crime rate per hundred thousand, the availability of cold beer, and the number of people per capita how don't understand per capita as a guide to the overall intelligence of the populous of each country.

I do hope that this brief post has answered your question as I have decided not to post here any more as it is redundant. Anyone who doesn't understand is really too ignorant to ever understand, others are using it to just rave on and on and on.

There is some humour here so I will look at the posts, we all need a good chuckle from time to time although it is a little sad then humour. It's like laughing at a cripple falling over ... hmmm it is a cripple falling over, very sad indeed.

 

Uhh yeah, you didn't counter my argument at all, you just ignored it. You have been shown multiple times how and why the per capita statistic is useful. Continuing to ignore arguments at this point is intellectually dishonest.