3 ms·

Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anyt

Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anything either but just addressing the points: 1) China: China is a developing nation, not on par in the US on any quality of life indicator. They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. 2) India: India has ~1B people, with about ~250M making like less than $5-10 dollars a day. They basically had no market economy until the 1980s. Again, comparing them to our responsibilities is laughable. 3) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." This is an absurd comment. We aren't going to buy coal from China. Coal jobs have been dying in the US for decades and will continue to do so because we don't want to use coal. And "be allowed to" doesn't mean they will. China is also building more solar than anyone else in the world. 4) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." Ok buddy. 5) "calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments" - This is a leadership item. If you think as the richest nation in the world we should help the poorer countries find green, economic ways to grow, then what's the problem? Also, it's not like we don't interact with the other parts of the world and aren't affect if they are polluted. I'd take this more to heart if his words on "fixing stuff at home" had any of that in his actual budget. 200B over 10 years? right. 6) "two-tenths of one degree" - This is because we should have started this shit in the 70s. His fears are correct. This is a first step to more and more restrictions because we are altering the planet in ways that probably already can't be taken back. "14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America" - so we should just not have any of our gains at all? It's just so much "What do I get out of helping? What's in it for me?" rather than, "Hey, let's be leaders and lead by example and show the world that we, the USA, live up to our myths as the 'Good Guys'."

babyrainbow 9y ago
> They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?
- hangonhn 9y ago
  Where they can't afford the more efficient methods of industrialization and must resort to the dirtier methods? Powering a country by coal is one such example. China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So what are they suppose to do? Renewables are expensive, although it is dropping in price, but they are also not useful at all hours and their production varies on conditions. Not all of China have plentiful sunshine. Coal is cheap, plentiful, and reliable. That's an easy choice for China. Are you saying poor countries should NOT industrialize to help save the world after the industrialized nations have had 100 years to pollute all they want and generate enormous sums of wealth in the process? Why would any developing nation sign on to that?
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So the real reason is not that china is a developing nation, but it has little oil and natural gas? That is not going to change, right? So you are saying that China can burn coal forever? And what happens when a country run out of oil and gas. Can it start burning coal if it is available? Doesn't this mean that the source of pollution will keep shifting perpetually, without a net reduction in emissions? Why not help these countries with setting up renewables, as much as it is possible. >Are you saying poor countries should NOT industrialize to help save the world after the industrialized nations have had 100 years to pollute all they want and generate enormous sums of wealth... No one is saying anything about stopping industrialization. But it does not make sense to exclude some countries on matters like this. The US had 100 years to pollute does not make much sense. Other countries also had 100 years to develop. That they weren't able to do so is no fault of US or other developed countries....
    - hangonhn 9y ago
      > Why not help these countries with setting up renewables, as much as it is possible. That's precisely what's in the Paris Climate Agreement. Sorry, I think we may be talking past each other and misunderstanding our views. Yes, agreed that industrialized nations should help and developing countries should cut back on dirtier methods of production. I was trying to inject the viewpoint of developing nations and underline why developing nations are getting aid and some leeway in the Paris agreement.

babyrainbow 9y ago

> They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?

hangonhn 9y ago
Where they can't afford the more efficient methods of industrialization and must resort to the dirtier methods? Powering a country by coal is one such example. China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So what are they suppose to do? Renewables are expensive, although it is dropping in price, but they are also not useful at all hours and their production varies on conditions. Not all of China have plentiful sunshine. Coal is cheap, plentiful, and reliable. That's an easy choice for China. Are you saying poor countries should NOT industrialize to help save the world after the industrialized nations have had 100 years to pollute all they want and generate enormous sums of wealth in the process? Why would any developing nation sign on to that?
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  >China has huge reserves of coal but little oil and natural gas. So the real reason is not that china is a developing nation, but it has little oil and natural gas? That is not going to change, right? So you are saying that China can burn coal forever? And what happens when a country run out of oil and gas. Can it start burning coal if it is available? Doesn't this mean that the source of pollution will keep shifting perpetually, without a net reduction in emissions? Why not help these countries with setting up renewables, as much as it is possible. >Are you saying poor countries should NOT industrialize to help save the world after the industrialized nations have had 100 years to pollute all they want and generate enormous sums of wealth... No one is saying anything about stopping industrialization. But it does not make sense to exclude some countries on matters like this. The US had 100 years to pollute does not make much sense. Other countries also had 100 years to develop. That they weren't able to do so is no fault of US or other developed countries....
  - hangonhn 9y ago
    > Why not help these countries with setting up renewables, as much as it is possible. That's precisely what's in the Paris Climate Agreement. Sorry, I think we may be talking past each other and misunderstanding our views. Yes, agreed that industrialized nations should help and developing countries should cut back on dirtier methods of production. I was trying to inject the viewpoint of developing nations and underline why developing nations are getting aid and some leeway in the Paris agreement.