5 ms·

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

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".
  - dkhenry 9y ago
    So is this a policy to redistribute wealth or to deal with climate change? Because it is advertised as something to deal with climate change, but all I see in it is a way to redistribute wealth. If we are serious about climate change then write a policy that deals with it. Everyone makes steps to reduce pollution, not half of us makes steps to reduce pollution and give lots of money to countries who do nothing so they can build up their green energy capabilities and use them to undercut a major source of domestic economic growth
    - _jal 9y ago
      I think you're attempting to drive a false distinction. At this scale, doing anything about anything involves "redistributing wealth". And if that's all you see, well, I'd suggest that has more to do with what you're looking at than what's there. If you approach this sort of global negotiation with a precondition that it not alter the existing economic order, that is the same as refusing to negotiate. If that's your view, then fine; there's clearly no point in discussing further. But if the goal is to deal honestly with climate change, the reality is that there will be winners and losers. Just like happened in the run-up to where we are now. Guess what: we won the run up. Now we have to decide if we're willing to give up some of the "unfair" share we've had for almost a century in return for our grandkids having something vaguely like the quality of life our parents had. Some days I really think the U.S. is just doomed by our culture. Thankfully, I'm more chipper other days.
usaar333 9y ago
dkhenry, alternatively it is far more unfair to have allowed developed countries to have developed all of their infrastructure while generating 80+% of excess carbon emissions , while banning developing countries from exercising this same path.
tropo 9y ago
The "family budget" and "credit card debt" analogies aren't too terrible. They are a decent start. They don't crash and burn until you have to account for inflation.
handedness 9y ago
> What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start. So your final analysis is to tear up the Bill of Rights?

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".
- dkhenry 9y ago
  So is this a policy to redistribute wealth or to deal with climate change? Because it is advertised as something to deal with climate change, but all I see in it is a way to redistribute wealth. If we are serious about climate change then write a policy that deals with it. Everyone makes steps to reduce pollution, not half of us makes steps to reduce pollution and give lots of money to countries who do nothing so they can build up their green energy capabilities and use them to undercut a major source of domestic economic growth
  - _jal 9y ago
    I think you're attempting to drive a false distinction. At this scale, doing anything about anything involves "redistributing wealth". And if that's all you see, well, I'd suggest that has more to do with what you're looking at than what's there. If you approach this sort of global negotiation with a precondition that it not alter the existing economic order, that is the same as refusing to negotiate. If that's your view, then fine; there's clearly no point in discussing further. But if the goal is to deal honestly with climate change, the reality is that there will be winners and losers. Just like happened in the run-up to where we are now. Guess what: we won the run up. Now we have to decide if we're willing to give up some of the "unfair" share we've had for almost a century in return for our grandkids having something vaguely like the quality of life our parents had. Some days I really think the U.S. is just doomed by our culture. Thankfully, I'm more chipper other days.

usaar333 9y ago

dkhenry, alternatively it is far more unfair to have allowed developed countries to have developed all of their infrastructure while generating 80+% of excess carbon emissions , while banning developing countries from exercising this same path.

tropo 9y ago

The "family budget" and "credit card debt" analogies aren't too terrible. They are a decent start. They don't crash and burn until you have to account for inflation.

handedness 9y ago

> What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start. So your final analysis is to tear up the Bill of Rights?