Er, per capita means that increasing the population de facto decreases the ratio, unless the pollution increases as well. What are you saying “no” to and why are you introducing “being perfect?” That’s two moved goalposts in one statement.
The goal is to reduce environmental pollutants. The way to do this is to measure the delta in pollution. Population doesn’t matter any more than landmass (and potentially slightly less).
I’m not introducing any goal posts. These are things assumable with common sense. “If a metric becomes a goal, it ceases to be a metric” applies in such case. For progress, the only thing that matters is the total amount going down—neither per km area nor per capita have any value in measuring meaningful progress. But they could provide a good snapshot of present impact of each country.
Per capita is a better snapshot because it measures impact of a citizen in the country. Per landmass isn’t great because it ignores countries with outsized impacts.
Er, per capita means that increasing the population de facto decreases the ratio, unless the pollution increases as well. What are you saying “no” to and why are you introducing “being perfect?” That’s two moved goalposts in one statement.
The goal is to reduce environmental pollutants. The way to do this is to measure the delta in pollution. Population doesn’t matter any more than landmass (and potentially slightly less).
I’m not introducing any goal posts. These are things assumable with common sense. “If a metric becomes a goal, it ceases to be a metric” applies in such case. For progress, the only thing that matters is the total amount going down—neither per km area nor per capita have any value in measuring meaningful progress. But they could provide a good snapshot of present impact of each country.
Per capita is a better snapshot because it measures impact of a citizen in the country. Per landmass isn’t great because it ignores countries with outsized impacts.