• 1 Post
  • 35 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle
  • Do you have actual data for that? Here are some comparisons of population density and emissions per capita:

    The first chart is every country and territory that wikipedia had numbers for on both population density and emissions per capita.

    The second has outliers with the highest densities and emissions per capita removed in order to make the rest visible (removed entries are Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bermuda, Brunei, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Macau, Maldives, Moldova, New Caledonia, Palau, Qatar, and Singapore. I hope you agree that these are not particularly comparable to the US or China for a variety of reasons and are okay to exclude).

    The third cuts it down to only countries that have a “very high” rating (at least 0.8) on the Human Development Index, as a proxy for advanced economies. As you can see, there is not a strong correlation between high densities and low emissions. Chile, Sweden, Argentina, and Norway all actually have both significantly lower densities than the US and significantly lower emissions (and there are more, I’m just counting some with populations of at least ten million). Same goes for NZ, there are several countries with comparable or lower densities and also lower emissions. The densest countries are not particularly low emitters, and the sparsest cover the full range.

    I can think of a few potential factors explaining it. Yes, high density makes transport easier, but it also means less access to land for clean energy (which is generally much less compact than fossil fuels). Additionally, even in very sparsely-populated countries, most of the population actually tends to be fairly concentrated around a few cities anyway. Consider Australia; it’s not like Australians are evenly distributed across the continent, so the very low population density isn’t particularly representative of the infrastructure challenges for most people there









  • I don’t know, I’m afraid. As I understand it, the base ten positional numbering system we use in most of the world (as in, the value of each individual digit is multiplied by ten a number of times based on its position in the number) originated in northern India, but the writing of the people that developed it did not use a lot of punctuation. The modern comma comes from Europe and I’m fairly sure that the idea of a thousands separator comes from Europeans trying to write big numbers in Roman numerals. Based on that I would assume that the British colonial period introduced the idea of using a comma as a thousands separator to India. However, while Europeans were used to thinking in thousands and millions, Indians were habitually thinking in lakhs and crores, so I assume they adjusted the commas to suit that. Since the separators are literally only there to make it easier to read and do not affect any of the maths you can do with it, I don’t imagine Indians would have much reason to change their system