In terms of scale is generally used it to describe a comparison of something with regard to its size or magnitude. Perhaps you're not familiar with this usage?
They are of a comparable measurement - total wattage. You can divide this by the respective population sizes and you'll get another type of data. You can also divide it by the amount of people living in urban areas, by the total amount of land, by the amount of land utilized for electricity generation, by the amount of time elapsed since the country was industrialized, by the amount of time elapsed since the country started producing renewable energy, or numerous other factors, and you'll get a different type of data every time. "In terms of scale" does not inherently imply that population size is the divisor
No you're 100% right it's not inherently about population, but that's a convenient and common measure.
Again, you're talking about total output here. Where's the scale? "Country" is not a uniform data point. So at best this is categorization.
An example:
There are 3 employees in one group, and they produce 9 widgets in a day.
In another group, there are 10 people, and they produce 20 widgets.
Fantastic. Group 2 makes more widgets right?!
IN TERMS OF SCALE, group 1's employees make 3 widgets per person.
Group 2's makes 2 or person.
That's why talking about total output power is kind of meaningless.
Why is a country not a uniform data point but a person (grouped by country) is?
IN TERMS OF SCALE, group 1’s employees make 3 widgets per person. Group 2’s makes 2 or person.
Also in terms of scale, group 1's employees makes 20 widgets in total. It's only meaningless if all you care about is how much each person produces. If Vatican City had the highest per capita energy production, it would still be insignificant in practice.
Glad you asked. A country is an arbitrary set of lines on a map, isn't it? A person is a discrete object, and for statistical purposes, roughly equivalent. That's why a ratio-scale of per capita is statistically more meaningful.
If Vatican City had the highest per capita energy production, it would still be insignificant in practice.
Why is that insignificant? By what measure?
I would argue that would be an interesting data point.(e.g What would cause that? Why are the people there doing that? How would people in the Vatican who worry about climate change know there's an issue otherwise? Etc?)
A previous poster said (correctly) that Canadians, per capita produce more GHGs. That's important information.
A country is not just its land, it's the people living there and the economic system with which it operates. The per capita energy capacity depends entirely on how the country of the individual in question is run, and the total energy capacity of a country is not primarily determined by the number of people living there, but by its access to the necessary resources (primarily trade in China's case, theft through imperialism in Canada's) and the goals of its government
Why is that insignificant? By what measure?
In terms of stopping the destruction of the planet
(primarily trade in China's case, theft through imperialism in Canada's)
That's an interesting take on that comparison. I'm not sure the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Tibet would necessarily agree with that portrayal of China.
In terms of stopping the destruction of the planet
Why? Let's say this was still the example... Couldn't the reach of the Vatican and its billions of followers make a meaningful impact?
I’m not sure the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Tibet would necessarily agree with that portrayal of China.
If you're not sure, then look into the history of those three regions of China before you make any hypocritical remarks, especially as someone from a genocidal settler colony like Canada
Why? Let’s say this was still the example… Couldn’t the reach of the Vatican and its billions of followers make a meaningful impact?
It's far from billions, but sure, hypothetically, if all followers of the Roman Catholic Church somehow managed to seize state power in their respective countries and started producing renewable energy, it would be meaningful. Back in reality, that's nothing but a thought experiment, and in case you genuinely didn't realize, my use of Vatican City as an example was because of its size
In terms of scale is generally used it to describe a comparison of something with regard to its size or magnitude. Perhaps you're not familiar with this usage?
You're partly right. It's used to compare things of different sizes, by converting them into a comparable measurement (i.e. scaling them)
They are of a comparable measurement - total wattage. You can divide this by the respective population sizes and you'll get another type of data. You can also divide it by the amount of people living in urban areas, by the total amount of land, by the amount of land utilized for electricity generation, by the amount of time elapsed since the country was industrialized, by the amount of time elapsed since the country started producing renewable energy, or numerous other factors, and you'll get a different type of data every time. "In terms of scale" does not inherently imply that population size is the divisor
No you're 100% right it's not inherently about population, but that's a convenient and common measure.
Again, you're talking about total output here. Where's the scale? "Country" is not a uniform data point. So at best this is categorization.
An example:
There are 3 employees in one group, and they produce 9 widgets in a day. In another group, there are 10 people, and they produce 20 widgets. Fantastic. Group 2 makes more widgets right?!
IN TERMS OF SCALE, group 1's employees make 3 widgets per person. Group 2's makes 2 or person.
That's why talking about total output power is kind of meaningless.
Why is a country not a uniform data point but a person (grouped by country) is?
Also in terms of scale, group 1's employees makes 20 widgets in total. It's only meaningless if all you care about is how much each person produces. If Vatican City had the highest per capita energy production, it would still be insignificant in practice.
Glad you asked. A country is an arbitrary set of lines on a map, isn't it? A person is a discrete object, and for statistical purposes, roughly equivalent. That's why a ratio-scale of per capita is statistically more meaningful.
Why is that insignificant? By what measure?
I would argue that would be an interesting data point.(e.g What would cause that? Why are the people there doing that? How would people in the Vatican who worry about climate change know there's an issue otherwise? Etc?)
A previous poster said (correctly) that Canadians, per capita produce more GHGs. That's important information.
A country is not just its land, it's the people living there and the economic system with which it operates. The per capita energy capacity depends entirely on how the country of the individual in question is run, and the total energy capacity of a country is not primarily determined by the number of people living there, but by its access to the necessary resources (primarily trade in China's case, theft through imperialism in Canada's) and the goals of its government
In terms of stopping the destruction of the planet
That's an interesting take on that comparison. I'm not sure the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Tibet would necessarily agree with that portrayal of China.
Why? Let's say this was still the example... Couldn't the reach of the Vatican and its billions of followers make a meaningful impact?
If you're not sure, then look into the history of those three regions of China before you make any hypocritical remarks, especially as someone from a genocidal settler colony like Canada
It's far from billions, but sure, hypothetically, if all followers of the Roman Catholic Church somehow managed to seize state power in their respective countries and started producing renewable energy, it would be meaningful. Back in reality, that's nothing but a thought experiment, and in case you genuinely didn't realize, my use of Vatican City as an example was because of its size