3 ms·

Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms), cont

Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms), contributed most to the problem and have the economic power to start addressing it. The reason Canada (to take another example) hasn't done more to prevent climate change has more to do with greed and misallocation of resources than with poverty eradication. The choice between lifting people out of poverty and addressing climate change is a false dilemma. Both can, and should, be worked on. Energy abstinence is not the solution. Instituting a carbon tax, ending the monopoly of rent-seeking energy utilities like NV Energy (who do all they can to stop renewables in their track, see [1] and [2]), and letting the market work would be far more effective. All that is needed is political will. [1] http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-solar-energy-beyond-residents/ http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-studies-finds-utilities-underpaying-for-solar-electricity/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-s...

api 11y ago
Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty. Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same.
- fmihaila 11y ago
  > Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. Of course not, nor should they. > I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same. Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).

api 11y ago

Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty. Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same.

fmihaila 11y ago
> Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. Of course not, nor should they. > I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same. Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).