5 ms·

With Trump at the helm, this now seems inevitable. I really wonder if this climate destruction is a form of warfare. It certainly favours countries in higher l

With Trump at the helm, this now seems inevitable. I really wonder if this climate destruction is a form of warfare. It certainly favours countries in higher latitudes.

kaesar14 7y ago
It feels easier to attribute it to the human tendency to consume whatever is available to them without thought of the future.
adrianN 7y ago
I don't like Trump either, but there is not a single nation on Earth that is on track to reach the Paris goals. Blaming Trump is not helpful. I doubt that Hillary would have been much better.
- atoav 7y ago
  I am not trying to bash the conman here, but even if the hypothetical other US-president would’ve chosen to just do nothing and leave everything as it was they would’ve done better than Trump. Trump actively made things worse and I am not sure if relativizing things in such an important area is a good thing. Because the fire brigade that actively denies your country is on fire and pumps gasoline into it just to show it to you is objectively worse than the one that clumsily falls over their own protective gear while spraying your country with way too little water.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dijit 7y ago
    This tautology makes me sick. All I keep hearing is boring old tropes from the leader of the US. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but we as a planet are guilty of doing nothing. It’s not beholden on any single country to save the world. Yes, trump pulling out of the Paris accords is quite frightening, but if the US public didn’t have an appetite for convenience over longevity then we might not have such an issue. I know I’m guilty of being wasteful and not supporting renewable or carbon neutral alternatives (I even complained that my energy prices are going up much faster due to the push for renewables). But that’s where it needs to start. Not blaming those at the top; trying to inspire those down here who could be swayed to have a little less convenience in their lives and to buy from companies that pledge to be carbon neutral.
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      I would suggest that trying to blame individual action is incorrect. This is a collective action problem and all the standard solutions would work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem E.g. people wouldn't get a choice to buy from non carbon neutral businesses if legislation was put in place to ramp up a carbon fee. And they would all benefit from this.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  The UK is currently part of the EU pledge, which is for a 40% cut in carbon emissions from 1990 to 2030, but the UK is already 43% down, more than 10 years ahead of the target.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The UK is indeed doing a better job than most countries but it is not on track to be carbon neutral by 2040 (or even 2050). Transportation is still a huge unsolved factor, as is agriculture and heating.
    - Brakenshire 7y ago
      It’s not on track to be carbon neutral by 2040, but that is a much higher bar than its Paris commitment.
- A2017U1 7y ago
  China already hit their 2020 goals years early. Their pledge was also far higher than the US's. Perhaps check your sources there mate, because you are provably wrong and should acknowledge that.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Those goals must be hilariously inadequate then: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
imtringued 7y ago
The USA isn't one one those. Russia and Canada will probably fare well.
ecf 7y ago
Russia has a great deal to gain by Siberia permafrost melting

With Trump at the helm, this now seems inevitable. I really wonder if this climate destruction is a form of warfare. It certainly favours countries in higher latitudes.

kaesar14 7y ago

It feels easier to attribute it to the human tendency to consume whatever is available to them without thought of the future.

adrianN 7y ago

I don't like Trump either, but there is not a single nation on Earth that is on track to reach the Paris goals. Blaming Trump is not helpful. I doubt that Hillary would have been much better.

atoav 7y ago
I am not trying to bash the conman here, but even if the hypothetical other US-president would’ve chosen to just do nothing and leave everything as it was they would’ve done better than Trump. Trump actively made things worse and I am not sure if relativizing things in such an important area is a good thing. Because the fire brigade that actively denies your country is on fire and pumps gasoline into it just to show it to you is objectively worse than the one that clumsily falls over their own protective gear while spraying your country with way too little water.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dijit 7y ago
  This tautology makes me sick. All I keep hearing is boring old tropes from the leader of the US. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but we as a planet are guilty of doing nothing. It’s not beholden on any single country to save the world. Yes, trump pulling out of the Paris accords is quite frightening, but if the US public didn’t have an appetite for convenience over longevity then we might not have such an issue. I know I’m guilty of being wasteful and not supporting renewable or carbon neutral alternatives (I even complained that my energy prices are going up much faster due to the push for renewables). But that’s where it needs to start. Not blaming those at the top; trying to inspire those down here who could be swayed to have a little less convenience in their lives and to buy from companies that pledge to be carbon neutral.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    I would suggest that trying to blame individual action is incorrect. This is a collective action problem and all the standard solutions would work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem E.g. people wouldn't get a choice to buy from non carbon neutral businesses if legislation was put in place to ramp up a carbon fee. And they would all benefit from this.
Brakenshire 7y ago
The UK is currently part of the EU pledge, which is for a 40% cut in carbon emissions from 1990 to 2030, but the UK is already 43% down, more than 10 years ahead of the target.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The UK is indeed doing a better job than most countries but it is not on track to be carbon neutral by 2040 (or even 2050). Transportation is still a huge unsolved factor, as is agriculture and heating.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    It’s not on track to be carbon neutral by 2040, but that is a much higher bar than its Paris commitment.
A2017U1 7y ago
China already hit their 2020 goals years early. Their pledge was also far higher than the US's. Perhaps check your sources there mate, because you are provably wrong and should acknowledge that.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Those goals must be hilariously inadequate then: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

imtringued 7y ago

The USA isn't one one those. Russia and Canada will probably fare well.

ecf 7y ago

Russia has a great deal to gain by Siberia permafrost melting