5 ms·

There is a massive difference between caring about the environment and following the Paris Climate Agreement. We as a country can do a ton to reduce our damage

There is a massive difference between caring about the environment and following the Paris Climate Agreement. We as a country can do a ton to reduce our damage to the environment. However it is going to be a drop in the bucket to what some third world and massively developing countries will contribute. Follow Amdahl's Law. The biggest emitters should get the biggest spanking. This is why Paris Agreement is almost completely worthless. China is the largest contributor of green house gasses in the world and emits about a third of all the green house gasses. (if not drastically more given the shady reporting). And they want to give China a free pass to keep polluting the world for another 13 years while every other country gets their emissions under control? I'm very pro environment and any serious agreement must have China curbing their emissions now. They emit twice the green house gasses as the US (which is the number 2 contributor). That cannot be allowed to continue.

adrr 9y ago
On per capita basis, we're more than double china. Getting US to china levels on per capita basis would make a huge difference in preventing climate change. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
- enknamel 9y ago
  Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year. This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduce by 1/12th. Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?
  - realityking 9y ago
    The problem is that you solution would require telling developing nations that they're not allowed to reach the living standard you and I enjoy - how is that fair?
    - enknamel 9y ago
      Why should that matter? All that matters is the environmental damage is reversed. That requires reducing emissions until we produce technology that can massively pull carbon out of the air. Continuing to insanely pollute the environment in the name of "fairness" is a great way to destroy the world.
    - wand3r 9y ago
      I don't think it is this much of a zero-sum game. You have framed this in an odd correlation != Way; e.g. As pollution increases so does quality of life. Uh, what if we plow 100B into battery production and photovoltaic cell system integration? We could build the 5-6 gigafactories to recycle and manufacture batteries...That use solar free energy...To reduce pollution...And cost...To increase quality of life...To cheap to meter
chc 9y ago
What you're talking about here is an artifact of your sampling method, not an actual problem. China emits roughly double the amount that the US does, but they have four times the population. That is actually a much better number than ours.
- enknamel 9y ago
  Yes but if you care about the environment it doesn't matter. Reducing the overall emissions is all that matters. And giving the biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is insanity.
  - chc 9y ago
    That's the point, though — you're not actually identifying the biggest polluter. You're drawing a circle around a group of people who are not the biggest polluters by bulk or per capita and are on average way better then the country that just pulled out of the accord, and you're saying, "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." This position is so seemingly unrelated to the facts that it really feels like you're looking for evidence to justify a pre-existing stance rather than examining the evidence dispassionately and arriving at a conclusion through reason. Are you sure there's not a little bit of that going on here?
    - enknamel 9y ago
      Please read before replying. I have at no point said "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." or anything that even implies that. All that matters is getting the biggest reduction as possible in global emissions. We enter into these agreements as entire countries. Any agreement that gives the world's biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is useless. If China cuts their pollution in half, the world wins more than if the next 3 top polluters cut their pollution in half. Try some dispassionate analysis of your own and you will arrive at the same conclusions as me.
burkaman 9y ago
How does leaving the agreement help to pressure China?
- enknamel 9y ago
  I never suggested it does or doesn't. It's just a bad agreement for the world compared to one that gets China to actually curb their emissions.
  - jza00425 9y ago
    Now it is even worse
jza00425 9y ago
Probably China should emit more so that the earth can be totally screwed and you will not worry about it anymore. Problem solved

adrr 9y ago

On per capita basis, we're more than double china. Getting US to china levels on per capita basis would make a huge difference in preventing climate change. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

enknamel 9y ago
Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year. This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduce by 1/12th. Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?
- realityking 9y ago
  The problem is that you solution would require telling developing nations that they're not allowed to reach the living standard you and I enjoy - how is that fair?
  - enknamel 9y ago
    Why should that matter? All that matters is the environmental damage is reversed. That requires reducing emissions until we produce technology that can massively pull carbon out of the air. Continuing to insanely pollute the environment in the name of "fairness" is a great way to destroy the world.
  - wand3r 9y ago
    I don't think it is this much of a zero-sum game. You have framed this in an odd correlation != Way; e.g. As pollution increases so does quality of life. Uh, what if we plow 100B into battery production and photovoltaic cell system integration? We could build the 5-6 gigafactories to recycle and manufacture batteries...That use solar free energy...To reduce pollution...And cost...To increase quality of life...To cheap to meter

chc 9y ago

What you're talking about here is an artifact of your sampling method, not an actual problem. China emits roughly double the amount that the US does, but they have four times the population. That is actually a much better number than ours.

enknamel 9y ago
Yes but if you care about the environment it doesn't matter. Reducing the overall emissions is all that matters. And giving the biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is insanity.
- chc 9y ago
  That's the point, though — you're not actually identifying the biggest polluter. You're drawing a circle around a group of people who are not the biggest polluters by bulk or per capita and are on average way better then the country that just pulled out of the accord, and you're saying, "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." This position is so seemingly unrelated to the facts that it really feels like you're looking for evidence to justify a pre-existing stance rather than examining the evidence dispassionately and arriving at a conclusion through reason. Are you sure there's not a little bit of that going on here?
  - enknamel 9y ago
    Please read before replying. I have at no point said "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." or anything that even implies that. All that matters is getting the biggest reduction as possible in global emissions. We enter into these agreements as entire countries. Any agreement that gives the world's biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is useless. If China cuts their pollution in half, the world wins more than if the next 3 top polluters cut their pollution in half. Try some dispassionate analysis of your own and you will arrive at the same conclusions as me.

burkaman 9y ago

How does leaving the agreement help to pressure China?

enknamel 9y ago
I never suggested it does or doesn't. It's just a bad agreement for the world compared to one that gets China to actually curb their emissions.
- jza00425 9y ago
  Now it is even worse

jza00425 9y ago

Probably China should emit more so that the earth can be totally screwed and you will not worry about it anymore. Problem solved