[untitled]
4 comments
The emissions of each nation would also be cut in half. The efficiency value would remain the same.
The GDP goes down, and so does CO2 emissions. So GDP/ton stays the same, and the population is halved.
…based on a strange measurement of “PPP GDP per CO2 ton per million people”.
GDP per CO2 emission gives you rough measurement of one economy's energy efficiency. GDP per capita gives you rough measurement of the wealth of the economy. What does GDP per CO2 emission per capita even mean?
GDP per CO2 emission gives you rough measurement of one economy's energy efficiency. GDP per capita gives you rough measurement of the wealth of the economy. What does GDP per CO2 emission per capita even mean?
The submitter is making a silly comparison.
Pretend we have country A with a $10 GDP, 10 tons of CO2, and 10 people.
Country B also has a $10 GDP, 10 tons of CO2, but only 1 person.
Subby's numbers make Country B 10 times as efficient when really they're both the same per ton of CO2.
There is already a PPP GDP per Emissions column in the source data. I don't think further dividing that number by population makes any sense. At least not to my small brain.
[deleted]
For example, imagine a country of efficiency of 1 and a population of 1m, and therefore having an "efficiency per million people" of 1.
Now, that country splits into two countries, each of population 500k. Oh happy days, each half of the former country now has an "efficiency per million people" of 2.