8 ms·

There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the ma

by Eadrax 10y ago

There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway .

meric 10y ago
They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities. "Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal – promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy – encourage the use of waste straw as a resource – reduction in-field burning – implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution ... By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%." What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen." You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change. It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.
  - refurb 10y ago
    which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      There actually was a drought in Syria when that civil war started. Of course, at most that's only part of the problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        A significant part, when you consider that the tensions we've seen explode have existed for decades. As we saw in Egypt however, when people can't support themselves, they become desperate enough to finally act. Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.
      - strainer 10y ago
        The other parts of the problem deserve mentioned here, because they are extremely problematic and eclipse present environmental crisis and strategy. Syrias civil war began after billions of dollars where somewhat clandestinely spent on fomenting violent revolution there - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-move-to-curb-1-billion-cia-program-to-train-syrian-rebels/2015/06/12/b0f45a9e-1114-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawma... Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'
        M_Grey 10y ago
        How dishonest can you get? Would you like to explain why Libya was an issue at that time, and not in the preceding decades?
- XaYdEk 10y ago
  Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs. Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible. Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks. '- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain. Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain. Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.
  - Qantourisc 10y ago
    "lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements. Which in theory is feasible to scale up.
    - XaYdEk 10y ago
      Technically yes, economically difficult for most nations, if it's approached at this level. Germany has had an interesting approach to solar, where they subsidized solar panels for homeowners. I think it is the smarter approach because you incentives individuals to go green, rather than trying to implement a top down solution. And even so, we will need to keep power plants on call for redundancy and high load purposes. There is a video about peak power usage in England which I found fascinating (though this is a rather unique case) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA
  - ar-jan 10y ago
    Both real-world examples and simulations say it's possible, by combining different renewable energy sources, spreading them out geographically, and using large distribution networks, among others: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-basel...
Pxtl 10y ago
Except India and China use less per capita than Westerners, and China is building low-carbon infrastructure mega-projects. Just because 100 people are dropping candy wrappers at the park doesn't make it okay for you to dump a bag of garbage.
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  Depends if your goal is to solve the problem or act morally.
  - flukus 10y ago
    The goal is to not sit on or arses while we wait for people who already produce less CO2 than us to reduce their usage.
    - refurb 10y ago
      The real measure should be CO2 output per unit of GDP. We still need to make stuff, so if you're going to release CO2, it better be an efficient use of it.
      - flukus 10y ago
        That's convenient. Presumably you'll stop driving, give up home air con and electricity, never fly anywhere, etc. Because those things aren't related to your GDP production.
        refurb 10y ago
        Disagree. All of those contribute to GDP. Someone has to make gas for my car, electricity for my air con, build a jet, etc.
      - dagss 10y ago
        We're already making a lot more stuff than what is needed (consider half of food is thrown away as food waste). What economies are fighting each other about these days is not so much availability of resources, as being the one who gets to make and sell in order to produce income. Morally, it matters who makes things. The countries with high GDP who are responsible for the current extra CO2 in the atmosphere could always (you know, in theoretical fantasy-land) help out to make sure others produce as efficiently but reap the benefits. Instead of using the argument you make to pull up the living-standard ladder behind them.
pavanred 10y ago
It is a complex problem. As far as I understand, in the criticism to any work on climate change in the west (at least in the US) is that people are still debating if it is real or not, in the face of evidence; hence there's lack of political will. And, in countries like India or China, the criticism is that lots of people need cheap fuel to get out of poverty and imposing restrictions would impede that. Though, the per capita consumption is way less compared to countries like US. That said, I wouldn't say these countries are not doing anything. I can speak for India, for example, there is the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission[0] that is a goal to achieve 100,000 MW of solar power generation by 2022 and I see developments underway in many states in India. There are similar initiatives in other areas like Wind energy etc. And, the defeatist attitude that no one takes it seriously, lets just do nothing and hope it works out is dangerous. As far as I can tell, the island nations will be the first affected, not to mention harsher weather, more storms, followed by massive shortages of food and water. I wouldn't be surprised if that leads to more wars than funding research and innovation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru_National_Solar_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru_National_Sola...
- rybosome 10y ago
  Yes, the US' continued debate over whether or not this is even real is maddening. Climate change has unfortunately been sucked into the great maw of partisan bickering, to loosely quote a different Vox article on the subject; belief or disbelief is not based on facts, but a deeply rooted sense of identity. And so, due to our highly tribal nature and inability to feel sufficient empathy for those in out groups, the US will not have the majority political will necessary to stop this problem. Barring a series of technological miracles that give us a bevy of cheap, carbon-neutral sources of energy generation and storage, we are completely fucked. I'll probably be lucky enough to die before things get truly awful, but if I have kids, they and their own children are going to experience the horror of a collapsing civilization. I vote for politicians that take this seriously. I try to discuss the issue rationally and calmly with skeptical friends. I am trying to get involved with a project doing research on nuclear fusion. Beyond that, I try not to think about the fact that I could be one of the last human generations. Walking around every day feeling like the axe is over the neck of our species, and we are too divisive, petty, greedy and apathetic to do anything is just heart-rending. I truly envy people who don't believe (or care) this is real.
pavanred 10y ago
Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- refurb 10y ago
  The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.
  - meric 10y ago
    Like weapons for export to Saudi Arabia to level Yemeni towns to reduce CO2 emissions, for example.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I... uh. Firstly, the number cited was ~10 times the CO2 output per capita, not ~16. Secondly, it doesn't follow that GDP production in a primarily high tech, services, IP based economy should track the CO2 behavior of a different sort of economy. It's entirely possible that we're producing far and away more GDP and wasting CO2 production needlessly. (In fact, out GDP multiplier is 1.6 times higher than our CO2 multiplier, hinting that the two are at least partially decoupled.)
    - refurb 10y ago
      I think you might be over estimating how much of the US economy is IP based or high tech. Google tells me 6.7M people work in tech out of 127M people with a full time job. Roughly 4%? Sure, the GDP per worker is higher, but suffice to say most of the GDP output of the US isn't due to sexy new low CO2 jobs. Edit: Tech is ~7% of US GDP.
dirtyaura 10y ago
China has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, they are also collaborating with nuclear power innovators, and building renewables. India is also building more nuclear and solar. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about them, they are the superpowers of 21st century and will understand negative consequences of climate change to their era. I would be more worried about US & Europe - Germany is shutting down nuclear plants, opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe, US has been very reluctant to participate in climate deals and has a lot of climate-deniers in power.
- contingencies 10y ago
  I live in Yunnan, southwest China, which is very close to India. Most of Asia's major rivers descent from eastern Tibet or its foothills in or close to Yunnan: the Brahmaputra (Assam), Salween (Yunnan), Mekong (Yunnan), Red River (Yunnan), Yangtze (Yunnan), Yellow River (Qinghai). China has built huge numbers of hydroelectric dams, in fact this region is almost certainly the unmatched world center for hydroelectricity. It is also one of if not the most ancient center of large scale hydro-engineering, due to Dujiangyan.[0] 16 years ago when I arrived, there were very few such dams, and all at smaller scale, so the pace of change has been great. (IMHO Beijing has done an OK / not terrible job of balancing these energy/"national security" requirements with ecological protection efforts.) Also, foreigners are often unaware that e-bikes are the dominant form of personal transport throughout China already. In terms of long distance transport, China's ever-expanding railways (eg. permafost-floating railway to Tibet!) carry more freight than any other country's network, and they are lending assistance to neighboring countries (Laos, Myanmar) on similar hydro-electric and rail infrastructure projects. Given these observations, I find it ridiculous to suggest that China is not doing its part. However, I do question the wisdom of allowing so many of its citizens to buy cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system
- icebraining 10y ago
  opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe It'd help if our governments didn't kept screwing up their maintenance, but the news from Belgium and Spain just don't provide much confidence.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 10y ago
Suggesting China and India aren't doing enough is at best a form of colonialism and at worst racist. Both produce far less CO2 per capita than western countries. The west has an interest in stunting their industrial growth not out of any sort of altruistic concern, but because they fear competition. Regardless, both India and China are embracing renewables and clean energy at a faster pace than the west, they're not only the future economic powerhouses but also more progressive environmentally.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  If we can avoid nation-state-thinking then yes. We can't; the basic architecture of any agreement right now must use the nation-state as signatory. That is a sale that cannot be made. It looks like a transfer of (mythical) carbon credits from the US to other nations.
godmodus 10y ago
it is actually in the west's hands, where most tycoons and climate change deniers reside.
raz32dust 10y ago
(a) China and India are doing the best they can, as highlighted by several links in this thread. I don't know where you get this information that China and India are "doing nothing". Please share your source. (b) "I say let it happen", "No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway ". Do you see the irony? Do you have any number to show that developed nations cannot put a dent on global warming? Whatever I could gather in 5 minutes points otherwise [1]. Even if you believe so, they can still help by: (i) Using their technical expertise and money in helping developing countries develop and deploy green technology. (ii) They are the consumers of most of the manufacturing output. They can set stricter rules on ecological impact of produced goods. They can set local laws that will not allow companies to buy from polluting industries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

by Eadrax 10y ago

meric 10y ago

They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities. "Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal – promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy – encourage the use of waste straw as a resource – reduction in-field burning – implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution ... By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%." What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen." You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.

M_Grey 10y ago
Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change. It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.
- refurb 10y ago
  which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    There actually was a drought in Syria when that civil war started. Of course, at most that's only part of the problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      A significant part, when you consider that the tensions we've seen explode have existed for decades. As we saw in Egypt however, when people can't support themselves, they become desperate enough to finally act. Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.
    - strainer 10y ago
      The other parts of the problem deserve mentioned here, because they are extremely problematic and eclipse present environmental crisis and strategy. Syrias civil war began after billions of dollars where somewhat clandestinely spent on fomenting violent revolution there - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-move-to-curb-1-billion-cia-program-to-train-syrian-rebels/2015/06/12/b0f45a9e-1114-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawma... Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        How dishonest can you get? Would you like to explain why Libya was an issue at that time, and not in the preceding decades?
XaYdEk 10y ago
Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs. Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible. Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks. '- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain. Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain. Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.
- Qantourisc 10y ago
  "lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements. Which in theory is feasible to scale up.
  - XaYdEk 10y ago
    Technically yes, economically difficult for most nations, if it's approached at this level. Germany has had an interesting approach to solar, where they subsidized solar panels for homeowners. I think it is the smarter approach because you incentives individuals to go green, rather than trying to implement a top down solution. And even so, we will need to keep power plants on call for redundancy and high load purposes. There is a video about peak power usage in England which I found fascinating (though this is a rather unique case) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA
- ar-jan 10y ago
  Both real-world examples and simulations say it's possible, by combining different renewable energy sources, spreading them out geographically, and using large distribution networks, among others: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-basel...

Pxtl 10y ago

Except India and China use less per capita than Westerners, and China is building low-carbon infrastructure mega-projects. Just because 100 people are dropping candy wrappers at the park doesn't make it okay for you to dump a bag of garbage.

Mao_Zedang 10y ago
Depends if your goal is to solve the problem or act morally.
- flukus 10y ago
  The goal is to not sit on or arses while we wait for people who already produce less CO2 than us to reduce their usage.
  - refurb 10y ago
    The real measure should be CO2 output per unit of GDP. We still need to make stuff, so if you're going to release CO2, it better be an efficient use of it.
    - flukus 10y ago
      That's convenient. Presumably you'll stop driving, give up home air con and electricity, never fly anywhere, etc. Because those things aren't related to your GDP production.
      - refurb 10y ago
        Disagree. All of those contribute to GDP. Someone has to make gas for my car, electricity for my air con, build a jet, etc.
    - dagss 10y ago
      We're already making a lot more stuff than what is needed (consider half of food is thrown away as food waste). What economies are fighting each other about these days is not so much availability of resources, as being the one who gets to make and sell in order to produce income. Morally, it matters who makes things. The countries with high GDP who are responsible for the current extra CO2 in the atmosphere could always (you know, in theoretical fantasy-land) help out to make sure others produce as efficiently but reap the benefits. Instead of using the argument you make to pull up the living-standard ladder behind them.

pavanred 10y ago

It is a complex problem. As far as I understand, in the criticism to any work on climate change in the west (at least in the US) is that people are still debating if it is real or not, in the face of evidence; hence there's lack of political will. And, in countries like India or China, the criticism is that lots of people need cheap fuel to get out of poverty and imposing restrictions would impede that. Though, the per capita consumption is way less compared to countries like US. That said, I wouldn't say these countries are not doing anything. I can speak for India, for example, there is the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission[0] that is a goal to achieve 100,000 MW of solar power generation by 2022 and I see developments underway in many states in India. There are similar initiatives in other areas like Wind energy etc. And, the defeatist attitude that no one takes it seriously, lets just do nothing and hope it works out is dangerous. As far as I can tell, the island nations will be the first affected, not to mention harsher weather, more storms, followed by massive shortages of food and water. I wouldn't be surprised if that leads to more wars than funding research and innovation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru_National_Solar_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru_National_Sola...

rybosome 10y ago
Yes, the US' continued debate over whether or not this is even real is maddening. Climate change has unfortunately been sucked into the great maw of partisan bickering, to loosely quote a different Vox article on the subject; belief or disbelief is not based on facts, but a deeply rooted sense of identity. And so, due to our highly tribal nature and inability to feel sufficient empathy for those in out groups, the US will not have the majority political will necessary to stop this problem. Barring a series of technological miracles that give us a bevy of cheap, carbon-neutral sources of energy generation and storage, we are completely fucked. I'll probably be lucky enough to die before things get truly awful, but if I have kids, they and their own children are going to experience the horror of a collapsing civilization. I vote for politicians that take this seriously. I try to discuss the issue rationally and calmly with skeptical friends. I am trying to get involved with a project doing research on nuclear fusion. Beyond that, I try not to think about the fact that I could be one of the last human generations. Walking around every day feeling like the axe is over the neck of our species, and we are too divisive, petty, greedy and apathetic to do anything is just heart-rending. I truly envy people who don't believe (or care) this is real.

pavanred 10y ago

Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

refurb 10y ago
The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.
- meric 10y ago
  Like weapons for export to Saudi Arabia to level Yemeni towns to reduce CO2 emissions, for example.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I... uh. Firstly, the number cited was ~10 times the CO2 output per capita, not ~16. Secondly, it doesn't follow that GDP production in a primarily high tech, services, IP based economy should track the CO2 behavior of a different sort of economy. It's entirely possible that we're producing far and away more GDP and wasting CO2 production needlessly. (In fact, out GDP multiplier is 1.6 times higher than our CO2 multiplier, hinting that the two are at least partially decoupled.)
  - refurb 10y ago
    I think you might be over estimating how much of the US economy is IP based or high tech. Google tells me 6.7M people work in tech out of 127M people with a full time job. Roughly 4%? Sure, the GDP per worker is higher, but suffice to say most of the GDP output of the US isn't due to sexy new low CO2 jobs. Edit: Tech is ~7% of US GDP.

dirtyaura 10y ago

China has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, they are also collaborating with nuclear power innovators, and building renewables. India is also building more nuclear and solar. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about them, they are the superpowers of 21st century and will understand negative consequences of climate change to their era. I would be more worried about US & Europe - Germany is shutting down nuclear plants, opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe, US has been very reluctant to participate in climate deals and has a lot of climate-deniers in power.

contingencies 10y ago
I live in Yunnan, southwest China, which is very close to India. Most of Asia's major rivers descent from eastern Tibet or its foothills in or close to Yunnan: the Brahmaputra (Assam), Salween (Yunnan), Mekong (Yunnan), Red River (Yunnan), Yangtze (Yunnan), Yellow River (Qinghai). China has built huge numbers of hydroelectric dams, in fact this region is almost certainly the unmatched world center for hydroelectricity. It is also one of if not the most ancient center of large scale hydro-engineering, due to Dujiangyan.[0] 16 years ago when I arrived, there were very few such dams, and all at smaller scale, so the pace of change has been great. (IMHO Beijing has done an OK / not terrible job of balancing these energy/"national security" requirements with ecological protection efforts.) Also, foreigners are often unaware that e-bikes are the dominant form of personal transport throughout China already. In terms of long distance transport, China's ever-expanding railways (eg. permafost-floating railway to Tibet!) carry more freight than any other country's network, and they are lending assistance to neighboring countries (Laos, Myanmar) on similar hydro-electric and rail infrastructure projects. Given these observations, I find it ridiculous to suggest that China is not doing its part. However, I do question the wisdom of allowing so many of its citizens to buy cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system
icebraining 10y ago
opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe It'd help if our governments didn't kept screwing up their maintenance, but the news from Belgium and Spain just don't provide much confidence.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Mikeb85 10y ago

Suggesting China and India aren't doing enough is at best a form of colonialism and at worst racist. Both produce far less CO2 per capita than western countries. The west has an interest in stunting their industrial growth not out of any sort of altruistic concern, but because they fear competition. Regardless, both India and China are embracing renewables and clean energy at a faster pace than the west, they're not only the future economic powerhouses but also more progressive environmentally.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
If we can avoid nation-state-thinking then yes. We can't; the basic architecture of any agreement right now must use the nation-state as signatory. That is a sale that cannot be made. It looks like a transfer of (mythical) carbon credits from the US to other nations.

godmodus 10y ago

it is actually in the west's hands, where most tycoons and climate change deniers reside.

raz32dust 10y ago

(a) China and India are doing the best they can, as highlighted by several links in this thread. I don't know where you get this information that China and India are "doing nothing". Please share your source. (b) "I say let it happen", "No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway ". Do you see the irony? Do you have any number to show that developed nations cannot put a dent on global warming? Whatever I could gather in 5 minutes points otherwise [1]. Even if you believe so, they can still help by: (i) Using their technical expertise and money in helping developing countries develop and deploy green technology. (ii) They are the consumers of most of the manufacturing output. They can set stricter rules on ecological impact of produced goods. They can set local laws that will not allow companies to buy from polluting industries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...