5 ms·

It is interesting how everyone can pass the blame for emissions. In Australia there is an argument from some that even though we are the highest polluter by cap

by robryan 10y ago

It is interesting how everyone can pass the blame for emissions. In Australia there is an argument from some that even though we are the highest polluter by capita our net emissions are low enough that it doesn't really matter what we do. A country like India or China could then turn that around a say if other countries that have a very high standard of life won't do anything then why should we.

shoo 10y ago
putting blame aside, the behaviour isn't particularly surprising if we assume that people are more or less rationally looking out for their own interests: it's not in my own interest to reduce my consumption and emissions. it's very much in my own interest for all of you to reduce your consumption and emissions. it's easy for me to change my own behaviour, but very hard for me to coerce you to change your behaviour against your own interests. it is in my interest to support global regulation of everyone's consumption and emissions, including my own, provided i believe i will gain more than i lose by participating.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  But it's a false dilemma. Ultimately, it's possible to reduce our emissions without reducing consumption, either of energy or resources.
  - TheSmiddy 10y ago
    The coal lobby has done a good job of making renewables look like they're a significantly different way of life. At the end of the day your aircon will still run whether it's powered by coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro or literally anything else that can push electrons. Where the power comes from has very little effect on the utility of that power.
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  Well China started investing in renewables some time ago and are now adding almost half the world renewables. The reality is though climate change can't be changed or reversed by capitalism fast enough. And because of the financial crisis over the last few years the developed world probably doest have the money it needs to finance the developing worlds energy needs. The next 1-2 billion people from Asia Africa will start using electricity a few times more than what they are now and the developed world curtailing their emissions wont be enough.
- jmfayard 10y ago
  You are perfectly correct each person (or each state) following its self interest leads in this case logically to a slow motion disaster Ethics, especially a la Kant, can help to address this shortcoming. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" I like eating meal every day, but I cannot wish that this become the universal diet (especially of those 1b Indians). Therefore my ethical compass tell me to alter my food habits
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
I recall a recent UK Prime Minister (Tony Blair) saying exactly the same thing. Classic free-rider problem.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  Your sentence is a bit ambiguous: was he shifting the blame, or frustrated at all the blame-shifting going on?
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Frustrated at the blame shifting and calling for global action. Climate change is one area his govenment had a reasonable record. They put in place many policies to promote better emmissions, subsidise alternative energy and efficiency. They missed a couple of targets they publicy set themselves, but did make good progress towards them. The Tories pretty much scrapped the lot the moment they got in power and are now full speed ahead trying to force fracking as the future. In locations far enough from London to not care tuppence about.
rrrazdan 10y ago
I will still make that argument, why should a poor guy living in isolated tribal land in India find his dream of basic electricity a bit farther, while people in Europe can take the moral high ground and still pollute nearly an order of magnitude than an Indian. Also the pollution in the last two-three centuries has been primarily First World led. Tell me how can Im as an Indian, tell the guy that he will have to wait some more time till we can get him to a basic living standard because cheaper options to get you there are off the table. Per capita human emissions should be equal within reasonable bounds of geographical needs?
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  There's what's fair, and there's saving the planet.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    Except you need the Indian and Chinese person to accept a worse quality of life for the cuts to work. It's tough to make that argument when it doesn't feel fair (and even tougher to get it to stick)
    - guelo 10y ago
      If weather patterns change to the point that agriculture collapses the poor jealous Indian villagers won't be any better off.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      It's unfortunately true that you need to get them to accept a slightly stunted quality of life. But expecting him/her/them to do that without leading by example and also making sacrifices is the highest order of duchebaggery.
  - tunichtgut 10y ago
    Dont say "saving the planet". The planet will be here for a long (long) time. No matter how hot or cold it ll be.

by robryan 10y ago

shoo 10y ago

putting blame aside, the behaviour isn't particularly surprising if we assume that people are more or less rationally looking out for their own interests: it's not in my own interest to reduce my consumption and emissions. it's very much in my own interest for all of you to reduce your consumption and emissions. it's easy for me to change my own behaviour, but very hard for me to coerce you to change your behaviour against your own interests. it is in my interest to support global regulation of everyone's consumption and emissions, including my own, provided i believe i will gain more than i lose by participating.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
But it's a false dilemma. Ultimately, it's possible to reduce our emissions without reducing consumption, either of energy or resources.
- TheSmiddy 10y ago
  The coal lobby has done a good job of making renewables look like they're a significantly different way of life. At the end of the day your aircon will still run whether it's powered by coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro or literally anything else that can push electrons. Where the power comes from has very little effect on the utility of that power.
xbmcuser 10y ago
Well China started investing in renewables some time ago and are now adding almost half the world renewables. The reality is though climate change can't be changed or reversed by capitalism fast enough. And because of the financial crisis over the last few years the developed world probably doest have the money it needs to finance the developing worlds energy needs. The next 1-2 billion people from Asia Africa will start using electricity a few times more than what they are now and the developed world curtailing their emissions wont be enough.
jmfayard 10y ago
You are perfectly correct each person (or each state) following its self interest leads in this case logically to a slow motion disaster Ethics, especially a la Kant, can help to address this shortcoming. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" I like eating meal every day, but I cannot wish that this become the universal diet (especially of those 1b Indians). Therefore my ethical compass tell me to alter my food habits

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

I recall a recent UK Prime Minister (Tony Blair) saying exactly the same thing. Classic free-rider problem.

vanderZwan 10y ago
Your sentence is a bit ambiguous: was he shifting the blame, or frustrated at all the blame-shifting going on?
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Frustrated at the blame shifting and calling for global action. Climate change is one area his govenment had a reasonable record. They put in place many policies to promote better emmissions, subsidise alternative energy and efficiency. They missed a couple of targets they publicy set themselves, but did make good progress towards them. The Tories pretty much scrapped the lot the moment they got in power and are now full speed ahead trying to force fracking as the future. In locations far enough from London to not care tuppence about.

rrrazdan 10y ago

I will still make that argument, why should a poor guy living in isolated tribal land in India find his dream of basic electricity a bit farther, while people in Europe can take the moral high ground and still pollute nearly an order of magnitude than an Indian. Also the pollution in the last two-three centuries has been primarily First World led. Tell me how can Im as an Indian, tell the guy that he will have to wait some more time till we can get him to a basic living standard because cheaper options to get you there are off the table. Per capita human emissions should be equal within reasonable bounds of geographical needs?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
There's what's fair, and there's saving the planet.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  Except you need the Indian and Chinese person to accept a worse quality of life for the cuts to work. It's tough to make that argument when it doesn't feel fair (and even tougher to get it to stick)
  - guelo 10y ago
    If weather patterns change to the point that agriculture collapses the poor jealous Indian villagers won't be any better off.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    It's unfortunately true that you need to get them to accept a slightly stunted quality of life. But expecting him/her/them to do that without leading by example and also making sacrifices is the highest order of duchebaggery.
- tunichtgut 10y ago
  Dont say "saving the planet". The planet will be here for a long (long) time. No matter how hot or cold it ll be.