Why “per capita emissions” is a bad frame for the climate debate
There are many layers of bad math in matters related to climate change, electric vehicles and renewable energy.  Too many to list.<p>One of my favorites is the use of averages.  This is self-evident to anyone who understands that the value of an average is highly dependent on the underlying distribution.  However, most people --and certainly most politicians-- do not understand this at all.<p>A typical example of this is calculating the additional power demand required in order to support a full transition to EVs.  The bad calculation usually starts with a web search to get the average miles a person drives (about 30).  That number is then applied to the entire population.  A number comes out and Bob&#x27;s your uncle.<p>Except, he isn&#x27;t.  And that&#x27;s nowhere close to a real number.  Yet, it this sort of thing is used everywhere.  Another one is solar panel output and solar installation power&#x2F;energy production.<p>This is so common, it has a name:  The Flaw of Averages<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hbr.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-flaw-of-averages" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hbr.org&#x2F;2002&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-flaw-of-averages</a><p>The greater point is that bad math is being used everywhere to drive narratives and make decisions that are just as flawed as the math used to justify or sell them to the public.