6 ms·
India, "still a coal Goliath" is a better description. They burn a massive amount of coal compared to most countries. They've just scaled slightly back on a ma
by hueving 9y ago
India, "still a coal Goliath" is a better description. They burn a massive amount of coal compared to most countries.
They've just scaled slightly back on a massive coal consumption plan they implemented in the last few years. Nice, but hardly worth any recognition in the shadow of the damage they have already done.
- llccbb 9y agoThe damage of bringing a billion people electricity?
- all_usernames 9y agoA billion more people who can now participate in the system that's already polluted the planet to the brink.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoMuch better to keep them empoverished and undeveloped, right? /s This sort of argument is exactly why I see environmentalism as anti-human at its heart.
- e9 9y agoI agree with you, but can you talk more about this? Is there an article or some other resource that talks more about this topic?
- duncan_bayne 9y agoAn illustrative starting point is the Golden Rice fiasco: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
- mikeash 9y agoMost environmentalists want to bring a high standard of living to everybody in a sustainable way. Yes, there are some over on the "voluntary human extinction" end of the spectrum, but you shouldn't tar them all with that brush.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoCertainly, that's true of most people who support green policies of various sorts. But I'm not at all sure it's true of the majority of environmentalist organisations and parties. I think there is as much of a disconnect between green voters and the desires of green politicians and lobbyists, as there is between the interests of Trump voters and Trump's interests. It's fairly common to hear green orgs denouncing industrialisation, economic growth, free trade, etc. In New Zealand, the Green Party was in part founded by literal Communists, left adrift and unfunded after the fall of the USSR. To summarise, I think that most people who think they are supporting what you said - a high standard of living in a sustainable manner - are actually supporting anti-capitalists.
- mikeash 9y agoI guess it's just a question of how you label various groups? I wouldn't consider fringe Green Parties or similar organizations to be representative of environmentalism. If I should be using another term, I wouldn't object too much.
- abhishivsaxena 9y agoPlease look at per capita emissions of India compared to other countries before making such statements. Wonder how Indians do a damage to the enviornment, by having the lowest per capita emissions on planet. FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- e9 9y agoper capita is pretty good measure of efficiency but environmental impact is probably better measured by emissions per area of the country? am I wrong?
- matt4077 9y ago> am I wrong? Yes. Area doesn't consume energy, people do. Otherwise Russia would be the most eco-friendly country in the world, and something like Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy.
- e9 9y agoI am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. So objectively speaking you are correct, social issues aside, Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy. But the issue of pollution is complicated and involves social issues so my perspective is not very helpful when you make policy decisions or include fairness towards people, etc.
- cygx 9y agoI am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. CO2 does not care about which piece of land it gets emitted from: As far as the main subject under discussion goes (in contrast to, say, air quality), pollution per square foot is an utterly meaningless metric.
- yumraj 9y ago> in the shadow of the damage they have already done. Really? See here: http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Gene... U.S. generated, per 2014 data, 1612 TWh from Coal and 1272 TWh from Gas. China generated 3681 TWh from Coal and 91 TWh from Gas. Compare this to India, which generated a mere 800 TWh from Coal and 89 TWh from Gas. And this when India has more than 4 times the population of US and according to some estimates, unverified, more population than China.
- specializeded 9y agoThe article is comparing India to India, the commenter is comparing India to India, you're not. A country having less output compared to more developed countries isn't surprising, nor the issue.
- rajathagasthya 9y ago> They burn a massive amount of coal compared to most countries. What part of this is comparing India to India?
- maldeh 9y agoBy your statement I presume you are alluding to India sourcing ~70% of its energy consumption from coal (compared to ~40% by the US), according to this source. I should point out that the parent poster's dataset comes from 2014, whereas the article is talking about a much more recent transition towards renewables (the Paris accord was signed 2015 and India took part circa 2016). The OP's point is still reasonable in terms of both absolute magnitude as well as per-capita, in that India, as a developing country and yet one of the most populous countries on the planet, consumes far less energy than developed states and is not as immediate a threat to life as we know it on a global basis, such as the US is. Indian policies towards coal consumption, no matter how progressive they can get, cannot hope to match the immediate impact their counterparts in the US can achieve today (and choose not to), and the current US administration does not really have grounds to point fingers elsewhere.
- 9y ago
- topspin 9y agoIndeed. India has a coal glut on their hands. India was opening one new coal planet every month at the end of 2015. Around the same time India's Arvin Subramanian coined the term “carbon imperialism" during Paris accord negotiations because India didn't like the terms. As expected, much more favorable terms were renegotiated to get India on board; India now gets to grow their CO2 emission as a function of GDP. A simple extrapolation of this shows they'll double their already huge CO2 output by the end of the decade, far surpassing the US. Made the deal a lot easier to sign.
- throwawayjava 9y ago> far surpassing the US Why is this a problem? India has 4x the population...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- notyourwork 9y agoWhy is this not a problem? In the world of pollution and environmental health, using justification of because another country does it doesn't work.
- cscurmudgeon 9y agoSo is an Indian worth less than an American?
- notyourwork 9y agoNeither is worth anything if we as a society kill the planet we call home so this isn't about race or worth. It is about us as a planet deciding to keep our planet healthy. Like I said, just because one country does it doesn't make it right for others. The others should be scolding the US not following in their naive ignorant foot steps.