7 ms·

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissio

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. 2. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing their use of cleaner energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since the areas most negatively affected by climate change are also poor. 3. The United States is not, in fact, particularly generous about foreign aid. 4. The Paris Agreement is intended to be a start - the reductions are so small in part to win over right-wing Americans, who in turn have the audacity to turn around and blast this agreement for not being effective enough.

ahh 9y ago
You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this. Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.
- devindotcom 9y ago
  Why is the Paris Accord "bad"? A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.
  - dkhenry 9y ago
    Its bad because its not a level playing field. Its tips the global economy away from Americans because they are too "Developed". Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.
    - lelandbatey 9y ago
      It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This isn't because China is doing a bad job, it's because there are a lot of people.
      - dkhenry 9y ago
        You are correct that there are many more people in China and that being poor in China is worse then being poor in America, but the solution is not to export global competitiveness to other countries until their quality of living is on par with Americans. Once that ability goes away it will not come back, and as you can tell no one really cares about the plight of rural Americans who stand to be the biggest losers from the change
        usaar333 9y ago
        No one is talking about giving developing countries a pass until their GDP per capitas are on par with developed nations.. Even with business as usual emissions, China's per capita GDP will maybe be half of what the US's will be in 35 years. I doubt climate mitigation policies would chip away at much of that difference.
    - ryanobjc 9y ago
      The fact is the US polluted the living fuck out of the world to get to it's developed status, and then turns around and says "no you cant do that". So a level playing field already makes no sense. The point of this is to achieve reasonable outcomes, while also allowing developing countries to grow reasonably (and live another billion out of poverty) while helping them with it. If the developed worlds can't afford another $100b, I really don't know what to say? Especially considering a lot of that comes around to contracts and exported goods from the very same developed countries! They're not about to start printing solar cells in a country that is barely feeding itself! As for "fly over country"... I really dont know what to say here. The world doesn't work like the simplistic metaphors that are being peddled to them. For example, the 'government budget is like a family budget' is a nonsensical analogy that is false. Or comparing government debt to credit card debt. These analogies stand in to trick the casual reader in to certain points of view (anti tax and anti government spending ones as it turns out). What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start.
      - dkhenry 9y ago
        You are looking at this from a macro level and completely ignoring the actual repercussions these policy's have. These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics. However the policy gives them an advantage in a globally equivalent marketplace. So no it isn't a reasonable outcome to ask a sovereign people to not be able to compete for business fairly simply because on average their citizens have more money then another country.
        _jal 9y ago
        > These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics That little figure happens to be kinda important. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and state that most people consider their quality of life to be somewhat more important than abstract ideas about global economic policy. "Fairness" had nothing to do with how we got here. Or, to flip it around, why would any country (let alone the ones the U.S. has abused for various reasons, artificially retarding their growth) agree to a model that dooms their citizens to a pre-industrial life? This is no different than the arguments for flat taxes because progressive income tax is "unfair".
    - azernik 9y ago
      That's where you and I disagree. The different requirements laid on developing vs. developed countries are in my opinion a feature, not a bug. Demanding from India and and Sub-Saharan Africa to remain pre-industrial nations while we get to keep polluting at a much higher per-capita rate is not in any sense a "level playing field" - it's grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain by polluting more.
      - tropo 9y ago
        Yes, it would be "grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain". You don't want that advantage? Are you tired of winning? Trump said: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!" Look, it was a joke. You're expected to like winning. I suppose you could move elsewhere on the non-level playing field if you actually don't like winning. You'd have to make some major lifestyle changes. I bet you do like winning.
        atonse 9y ago
        Except in this case you aren't winning. We're all losing. The climate isn't just going to be nice on developed nations 20 years from now. It's going to be bad for all nations because we didn't act. We're all losing. Already.
        azernik 9y ago
        You work so hard on "winning" that you push much more poor and desperate people to the breaking point, you're going to have problems.
    - propman 9y ago
      In 10 years regardless of this agreement flyover country will have more renewable energy jobs than manufacturing jobs lol. Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota and Kansas generate 25% of their total energy from just Wind and Texas leads the country in total renewables just from Wind. Yes Texas produces more renewable energy than California. And crazy part, this was almost 90% accomplished in the last 6 years only. These states will turn blue if federal policies harm them. Farms barely surviving put 5 wind turbines on their land and make 50k a year for 30 years. Counties with nothing going for them happen to have the best Wind in the world.
      - dkhenry 9y ago
        I agree, and we will continue to see those jobs grow. I don't see this as us moving away from green jobs and a reduced carbon footprint. This is about us signing away our competitiveness because someone thinks it makes things fair. We will continue to produce more renewable energy and continue to make it more economic. Other countries are free to continue as well, but we shouldn't give them money so they can invest in industries that will attempt to undercut domestic firms in the global marketplace.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - digitalzombie 9y ago
      > Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree. I could throw out statistic too. > Seven out of 10 Americans support remaining in the agreement, according to a national poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-ame...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - minusSeven 9y ago
      But isn't the whole thing non binding in the first place ? Isn't this just supposed to be start so each nation on its know can plan and do it in its own way ?
- pharrlax 9y ago
  Incremental !== bad
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  We must do this and more. Do not let perfect be the enemy of the future of this earth.
  - ahh 9y ago
    How, given arguments in GP, does this actually do anything of value? Note that I do not consider signaling how much we care as valuable.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      Given we can't actually leave the accord until 2020, Trump's whole speech is nothing but signaling.
      - underdown 9y ago
        This was not a treaty ratified by the senate so it's not legally binding in any way.
        mcphage 9y ago
        So then, "leaving" it nothing but signaling.
- r00fus 9y ago
  There is a difference between a) not going along with something is considered "doing something" and b) rejecting an existing "doing something" Treaty that only 2 other countries did not sign, that has minuscule economic impact ... without having a replacement. That (b) is what happened. That means Trump doesn't think something must be done - which means this administration does not care about climate science and it's predicted (and proven with current findings) disastrous impacts. There is no alternative - either we begin to fix the problem with a global framework, or we suffer the tragedy of the commons on a global scale - and we're already seeing the effects of global temperature warming and ocean acidification.
lazzlazzlazz 9y ago
If these are the best replies to Trump's remarks, I very sadly must agree with Trump. Extremely disappointing.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  What makes these points disappointing?
  - alando46 9y ago
    Ya they seem pretty sound to me.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  While they seem like decent replies to me, there is no reason to think that you'd get the best replies to a complicated policy question from a random commenter in a forum for technology entrepreneurs.
  - lazzlazzlazz 9y ago
    Which is why I said "if these are the best replies".
    - sanderjd 9y ago
      My reading of that idiom is that it implies an assumption that they are the best replies. My comment was to point out that there's no reason to think that would be the case.
- burkaman 9y ago
  You've picked one single response that you don't like. Please read the rest in this thread, and then find a better source because there's no reason to think HN commenters are particularly expert in this area.
  - lazzlazzlazz 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dkhenry 9y ago
1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes. 2. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in turn we are also giving them the ability to outperform us in manufacturing the capability to create clean energy, if you want to help them use clean energy mandate that it comes from local companies. No one will like someone else showing up with bags full of sovereign wealth and tipping the scales. These countries per capita might be poorer, but from a global markets level they are right on par with their American counterparts. 3. Debate? We are by far the largest foreign aid donor. 4. The Paris Agreement was signed by the President without the consent of congress, partially because it didn't win over right-wing Americans. At some point we need to be adults about this and do something, the country is not supposed to be run as a Dictatorship by either party, all its doing is slowly killing everyone
- ryanobjc 9y ago
  2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many, consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine about how unfair life is when you're the richest.
  - dkhenry 9y ago
    2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.
hyperdunc 9y ago
China and India each have over four times the population of the United States. They have to take some collective responsibility for that so their emissions per person should be lower.
- manicdee 9y ago
  China and India have ¼ and 1/11 the per-capita emissions if the USA. Thus the Chinese could triple their emissions output and still be "cleaner" than the USA. India could increase their emissions by an order of magnitude and still be "cleaner" than the USA. As the 7th most polluting country in the world, the USA should take responsibility to show that their emissions per person should be lower. This is how Trump carefully frames the debate: talking about increases in emissions without referring to current emissions.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    The USA creates far too much pollution, no doubt about it. If China and India only stop emissions increases when they reach per capita parity with the USA then we're all in a lot of trouble.
  - rtx 9y ago
    Per capita is the wrong way to look at it. As someone living in India we don't want us to aspire for that kind of emissions. I belive we should start with a freeze on top ten countries. India can grow in other ways.
- azernik 9y ago
  I'm sorry, what? They should take collective responsibility for not being divided into a dozen smaller states like Europe is?
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    Europe is sufficiently integrated to consider it as a bloc with regards to this issue. Europe's population is twice that of the USA and half that of China/India. If Europe's emissions increased to the same per capita level as the USA that would obviously be a bad thing.
koolba 9y ago
What country gives more foreign aid, either in total or per capita, than the USA?
- azernik 9y ago
  In total terms, none - the US is much bigger than other developed countries (unless you count the EU as a bloc, in which case, yes, the EU, by almost three times). In per-economic-output terms, MANY. The EU average is 0.47% of GNI [1], while the US gives 0.17% of GNI, and Sweden (the outstanding example) gives a whopping 1.4% of GNI. Outside of the EU, Japan gives "only" 30-ish% more than the US, at 0.22%. Another interesting stand-out is Turkey, which despite being MUCH poorer than the developed world gives 0.54% of GNI. The United Nations and OECD long-term target is 0.7% of GNI. [1] GNI is a modified version of GDP which adds income earned abroad by residents and subtracts income earned locally by non-residents. [2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
desdiv 9y ago
>1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. China's current emissions is at 7.7 T/capita. India's current emissions is at 1.9 T/capita. A fair and equitable solution would be to impose a hard limit at, let's say, 8 or 10 T/capita for everyone, no exceptions. This way everyone plays by the same rules. If you offered these terms to China and India, I'm pretty sure their leaders will take it, despite the harshness of it.
yellowapple 9y ago
"requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries" It sounds to me like the effort needs to be in making green energy more affordable than non-green energy. This would benefit all nations. Money talks. If it's cheaper to go green, even the most die-hard conservative will go green (anecdotal case in point: my die-hard conservative grandfather, who drives a Prius).
- azernik 9y ago
  And that's exactly what that big chunk of cash is supposed to be for - to help developing nations start out with cleaner power generation.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    Right, but it does so by giving them money to spend on expensive stuff, which treats one of the symptoms instead of the root cause. What I'd sooner advocate is to instead give that money to organizations working to make that expensive stuff actually cheap for everyone (or at least cheaper than the alternative of sticking with fossil fuels). That way, it's more economical for everyone (not just rich countries, and not just poor countries) to skip the fossil fuels stage of industrialization and jump straight to green energy everywhere.

ahh 9y ago

You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this. Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.

devindotcom 9y ago
Why is the Paris Accord "bad"? A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.
- dkhenry 9y ago
  Its bad because its not a level playing field. Its tips the global economy away from Americans because they are too "Developed". Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.
  - lelandbatey 9y ago
    It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This isn't because China is doing a bad job, it's because there are a lot of people.
    - dkhenry 9y ago
      You are correct that there are many more people in China and that being poor in China is worse then being poor in America, but the solution is not to export global competitiveness to other countries until their quality of living is on par with Americans. Once that ability goes away it will not come back, and as you can tell no one really cares about the plight of rural Americans who stand to be the biggest losers from the change
      - usaar333 9y ago
        No one is talking about giving developing countries a pass until their GDP per capitas are on par with developed nations.. Even with business as usual emissions, China's per capita GDP will maybe be half of what the US's will be in 35 years. I doubt climate mitigation policies would chip away at much of that difference.
  - ryanobjc 9y ago
    The fact is the US polluted the living fuck out of the world to get to it's developed status, and then turns around and says "no you cant do that". So a level playing field already makes no sense. The point of this is to achieve reasonable outcomes, while also allowing developing countries to grow reasonably (and live another billion out of poverty) while helping them with it. If the developed worlds can't afford another $100b, I really don't know what to say? Especially considering a lot of that comes around to contracts and exported goods from the very same developed countries! They're not about to start printing solar cells in a country that is barely feeding itself! As for "fly over country"... I really dont know what to say here. The world doesn't work like the simplistic metaphors that are being peddled to them. For example, the 'government budget is like a family budget' is a nonsensical analogy that is false. Or comparing government debt to credit card debt. These analogies stand in to trick the casual reader in to certain points of view (anti tax and anti government spending ones as it turns out). What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start.
    - dkhenry 9y ago
      You are looking at this from a macro level and completely ignoring the actual repercussions these policy's have. These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics. However the policy gives them an advantage in a globally equivalent marketplace. So no it isn't a reasonable outcome to ask a sovereign people to not be able to compete for business fairly simply because on average their citizens have more money then another country.
      - _jal 9y ago
        > These other countries who you are saying need to "Develop" are not behind the "Developed" countries in any metric other then quality of life statistics That little figure happens to be kinda important. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and state that most people consider their quality of life to be somewhat more important than abstract ideas about global economic policy. "Fairness" had nothing to do with how we got here. Or, to flip it around, why would any country (let alone the ones the U.S. has abused for various reasons, artificially retarding their growth) agree to a model that dooms their citizens to a pre-industrial life? This is no different than the arguments for flat taxes because progressive income tax is "unfair".
  - azernik 9y ago
    That's where you and I disagree. The different requirements laid on developing vs. developed countries are in my opinion a feature, not a bug. Demanding from India and and Sub-Saharan Africa to remain pre-industrial nations while we get to keep polluting at a much higher per-capita rate is not in any sense a "level playing field" - it's grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain by polluting more.
    - tropo 9y ago
      Yes, it would be "grandfathering in the advantage we currently gain". You don't want that advantage? Are you tired of winning? Trump said: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!" Look, it was a joke. You're expected to like winning. I suppose you could move elsewhere on the non-level playing field if you actually don't like winning. You'd have to make some major lifestyle changes. I bet you do like winning.
      - atonse 9y ago
        Except in this case you aren't winning. We're all losing. The climate isn't just going to be nice on developed nations 20 years from now. It's going to be bad for all nations because we didn't act. We're all losing. Already.
      - azernik 9y ago
        You work so hard on "winning" that you push much more poor and desperate people to the breaking point, you're going to have problems.
  - propman 9y ago
    In 10 years regardless of this agreement flyover country will have more renewable energy jobs than manufacturing jobs lol. Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota and Kansas generate 25% of their total energy from just Wind and Texas leads the country in total renewables just from Wind. Yes Texas produces more renewable energy than California. And crazy part, this was almost 90% accomplished in the last 6 years only. These states will turn blue if federal policies harm them. Farms barely surviving put 5 wind turbines on their land and make 50k a year for 30 years. Counties with nothing going for them happen to have the best Wind in the world.
    - dkhenry 9y ago
      I agree, and we will continue to see those jobs grow. I don't see this as us moving away from green jobs and a reduced carbon footprint. This is about us signing away our competitiveness because someone thinks it makes things fair. We will continue to produce more renewable energy and continue to make it more economic. Other countries are free to continue as well, but we shouldn't give them money so they can invest in industries that will attempt to undercut domestic firms in the global marketplace.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - digitalzombie 9y ago
    > Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree. I could throw out statistic too. > Seven out of 10 Americans support remaining in the agreement, according to a national poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-ame...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - minusSeven 9y ago
    But isn't the whole thing non binding in the first place ? Isn't this just supposed to be start so each nation on its know can plan and do it in its own way ?
pharrlax 9y ago
Incremental !== bad
mmanfrin 9y ago
We must do this and more. Do not let perfect be the enemy of the future of this earth.
- ahh 9y ago
  How, given arguments in GP, does this actually do anything of value? Note that I do not consider signaling how much we care as valuable.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Given we can't actually leave the accord until 2020, Trump's whole speech is nothing but signaling.
    - underdown 9y ago
      This was not a treaty ratified by the senate so it's not legally binding in any way.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        So then, "leaving" it nothing but signaling.
r00fus 9y ago
There is a difference between a) not going along with something is considered "doing something" and b) rejecting an existing "doing something" Treaty that only 2 other countries did not sign, that has minuscule economic impact ... without having a replacement. That (b) is what happened. That means Trump doesn't think something must be done - which means this administration does not care about climate science and it's predicted (and proven with current findings) disastrous impacts. There is no alternative - either we begin to fix the problem with a global framework, or we suffer the tragedy of the commons on a global scale - and we're already seeing the effects of global temperature warming and ocean acidification.

lazzlazzlazz 9y ago

If these are the best replies to Trump's remarks, I very sadly must agree with Trump. Extremely disappointing.

alpha_squared 9y ago
What makes these points disappointing?
- alando46 9y ago
  Ya they seem pretty sound to me.
sanderjd 9y ago
While they seem like decent replies to me, there is no reason to think that you'd get the best replies to a complicated policy question from a random commenter in a forum for technology entrepreneurs.
- lazzlazzlazz 9y ago
  Which is why I said "if these are the best replies".
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    My reading of that idiom is that it implies an assumption that they are the best replies. My comment was to point out that there's no reason to think that would be the case.
burkaman 9y ago
You've picked one single response that you don't like. Please read the rest in this thread, and then find a better source because there's no reason to think HN commenters are particularly expert in this area.
- lazzlazzlazz 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dkhenry 9y ago

1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes. 2. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in turn we are also giving them the ability to outperform us in manufacturing the capability to create clean energy, if you want to help them use clean energy mandate that it comes from local companies. No one will like someone else showing up with bags full of sovereign wealth and tipping the scales. These countries per capita might be poorer, but from a global markets level they are right on par with their American counterparts. 3. Debate? We are by far the largest foreign aid donor. 4. The Paris Agreement was signed by the President without the consent of congress, partially because it didn't win over right-wing Americans. At some point we need to be adults about this and do something, the country is not supposed to be run as a Dictatorship by either party, all its doing is slowly killing everyone

ryanobjc 9y ago
2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many, consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine about how unfair life is when you're the richest.
- dkhenry 9y ago
  2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.

hyperdunc 9y ago

China and India each have over four times the population of the United States. They have to take some collective responsibility for that so their emissions per person should be lower.

manicdee 9y ago
China and India have ¼ and 1/11 the per-capita emissions if the USA. Thus the Chinese could triple their emissions output and still be "cleaner" than the USA. India could increase their emissions by an order of magnitude and still be "cleaner" than the USA. As the 7th most polluting country in the world, the USA should take responsibility to show that their emissions per person should be lower. This is how Trump carefully frames the debate: talking about increases in emissions without referring to current emissions.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  The USA creates far too much pollution, no doubt about it. If China and India only stop emissions increases when they reach per capita parity with the USA then we're all in a lot of trouble.
- rtx 9y ago
  Per capita is the wrong way to look at it. As someone living in India we don't want us to aspire for that kind of emissions. I belive we should start with a freeze on top ten countries. India can grow in other ways.
azernik 9y ago
I'm sorry, what? They should take collective responsibility for not being divided into a dozen smaller states like Europe is?
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Europe is sufficiently integrated to consider it as a bloc with regards to this issue. Europe's population is twice that of the USA and half that of China/India. If Europe's emissions increased to the same per capita level as the USA that would obviously be a bad thing.

koolba 9y ago

What country gives more foreign aid, either in total or per capita, than the USA?

azernik 9y ago
In total terms, none - the US is much bigger than other developed countries (unless you count the EU as a bloc, in which case, yes, the EU, by almost three times). In per-economic-output terms, MANY. The EU average is 0.47% of GNI [1], while the US gives 0.17% of GNI, and Sweden (the outstanding example) gives a whopping 1.4% of GNI. Outside of the EU, Japan gives "only" 30-ish% more than the US, at 0.22%. Another interesting stand-out is Turkey, which despite being MUCH poorer than the developed world gives 0.54% of GNI. The United Nations and OECD long-term target is 0.7% of GNI. [1] GNI is a modified version of GDP which adds income earned abroad by residents and subtracts income earned locally by non-residents. [2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...

desdiv 9y ago

>1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. China's current emissions is at 7.7 T/capita. India's current emissions is at 1.9 T/capita. A fair and equitable solution would be to impose a hard limit at, let's say, 8 or 10 T/capita for everyone, no exceptions. This way everyone plays by the same rules. If you offered these terms to China and India, I'm pretty sure their leaders will take it, despite the harshness of it.

yellowapple 9y ago

"requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries" It sounds to me like the effort needs to be in making green energy more affordable than non-green energy. This would benefit all nations. Money talks. If it's cheaper to go green, even the most die-hard conservative will go green (anecdotal case in point: my die-hard conservative grandfather, who drives a Prius).

azernik 9y ago
And that's exactly what that big chunk of cash is supposed to be for - to help developing nations start out with cleaner power generation.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  Right, but it does so by giving them money to spend on expensive stuff, which treats one of the symptoms instead of the root cause. What I'd sooner advocate is to instead give that money to organizations working to make that expensive stuff actually cheap for everyone (or at least cheaper than the alternative of sticking with fossil fuels). That way, it's more economical for everyone (not just rich countries, and not just poor countries) to skip the fossil fuels stage of industrialization and jump straight to green energy everywhere.