7 ms·

Sure, but before that rest of the world must make sure they have done everything they can in their own territories. But I doubt that is the case. Otherwise it

Sure, but before that rest of the world must make sure they have done everything they can in their own territories. But I doubt that is the case. Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism.

dfcmt 7y ago
>Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism. You've described environmentalism.
fulafel 7y ago
Isn't this argument essentially saying that progress needs to happen in lockstep in all countries, otherwise it's unfair or hypocritical? A sure receipe to gridlock everything. Perfect is the enemy of good, given the urgency it's really necessary to act pragmatically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Because it is unfair and hypocritical. That's how western countries became rich, but now all the poor countries are being barred from this path. People in poor countries suffer. You're basically saying that they should have fewer opportunities than others.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    People in poor countries also stand to suffer disproportionately from climate change. So it's definitely a good thing in Brazilian self interest too. Of course we should do our best towards fairness as well, but perfectionism amounts to giving up. Edit: also, many rich countries have chopped away their forests and it's now plain that doing sustainable forestry would have been much better even for the time.
  - emn13 7y ago
    That's a lovely tale, but is it actually true? The path "western" countries took to riches was long, painful, and destructive. The alternatives available today simply weren't available then. If indeed the only route to modernization were via the exact path medieval Europe ended up taking then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not the case - right? If all you have to burn is wood, and all you can grow are relatively unimproved crops, then that's what you burn and grow. But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Also, brazil is not some weak, destitute country. It's GDP is comparable to italy & france, and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania. At PPP, the average income is pretty much smack on the world average, similar to china and serbia (the poorest EU country). Brazil isn't rich, but neither is it poor; it has the means to spend at least a small amount of effort avoiding deforstation. And let's not forget that deforestation will likely hurt Brazil too in the medium term; trying to avoid that isn't asking for a major sacrifice. It's asking for calm, rationality, and discipline. And yes, that's not at all trivial, but it's not a black and white affair either; some improvement is probably achievable, right?
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania Bulgaria is a poor country. Bringing them up as an example is a bad idea, because life there isn't great. >But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Yeah, and that "help" will come after we've sanctioned them into irrelevance, right? How would you feel if people discussed openly like this that China should buy a large chunk of the US and force the US to submit through sanctions from the world? Sanctions that would likely severely impact the quality of life of the people in the US? (Even then Americans would still be richer than Brazilians are right now.)
      - emn13 7y ago
        Bulgaria's GDP is comparable to brazil's and about world average. It's not poor. It may feel that way, being so close to much richer countries, but it's just not poor in any absolute way. In PPP bulgaria is even well above average and median: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... --- As to sanctions, and the fairness and perception thereof: I don't think that fairness matters; nor should matter. There's no good way to figure out what's "fair" and what's not in the first place, and different people have different perceptions. Waiting for fairness simply implies not acting; and that's too costly. The whole situation isn't trivially generalizable to other countries anyhow; deforestation of the amazon happens in the amazon basin, i.e. largely in Brazil. This circumstance applies here, not elsewhere, and circumstances aren't always irrelevant. Furthermore: the only reason to apply sanctions in the first place (and I hope I wasn't the poster to use that word?) is to induce change. If the sanctions are too mild and change not induced, they're merely harmful. If sanctions do induce change, then there's no "sanctioning into irrelevance" to speak of anymore, right? But personally: I'd hope that sanctions could be applies precisely enough to induce change without impacting quality of life very much for the vast majority of brazilians that aren't chopping away daily. E.g. by prohibiting the trade in goods that encourage chopping as long as chopping persists (beef and vegetable oil IIRC?); If you want fairness; how about a simultaneous push to lower tariffs or other barriers on other goods. The aim should not be to punish, simply to force change. --- Finally, I'm going to emphasize that I really think aiming for international fairness is a terrible idea here - but... if indeed a similar issue were to face the US or EU, I'd vehemently agree that sanctions are warranted. And there are issues where it'd be only fair to apply pressure even today. But the thing is: it's not a tit-for-tat game; the point is to cause change. Sanctions that don't cause change are worse than pointless; they're damaging. And however unfair that may be, I don't think it's going to be easy to leverage the US like that anytime soon. Maybe china, you're right... but then the question is whether they'd do that even if it's in the rest of the world's interest - after all, sanctions typically hurt the sanctioning country too (both directly and indirectly), not to mention cause diplomatic damage. If if china had the leverage, would they "waste" it on something like GHG, or instead prefer to "win" the next trade war? Which brings me to a small dose of realism: it might be benevolent and selfless to apply pressure on Brazil wrt. the rainforest today, but which country is going to waste whatever leverage they have over Brazil and squander diplomatic goodwill over a rainforest that's everyone's problem, most specifically Brazil's too? Brazilians might even be better off in the long run - but countries aren't easily that selfless, so it's not going to happen. This whole discussion is likely going to remain hypothetical.
- mayankkaizen 7y ago
  You have 1 million dollars and you aren't willing to spend even 100 dollars to fight climate change. I have only 100 dollars and you, the millionaire, are forcing me to spend 50 dollars on that cause. How is that fair? There is nothing good here, much less perfection. US and China, only 2 countries, can do far more to fight climate change. I want Amazon to be saved as much as anybody else. Deforestation of Amazon is something large scaled stuff and protecting it is also a big task. If we want Brazil to stop Amazon deforestation, we must also make sure that counties like US, China must also take similar big steps.
  - xvilka 7y ago
    Not sure about the US, especially today, but China does a lot[1] for fighting climate change and deforestation. [1] https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/ https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-it...
  - teddyh 7y ago
    It may be unfair. So what? We aren’t aiming for fairness here, we’re supposed to be saving the planet, by any means necessary, by fair means or foul.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    I don't think you can claim that all other big emitters are doing so little. EU, China, etc are doing various things. The US is the black sheep today but hopefully they will snap out of the tea party soon. Eg China: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/china-is-on-track-to-beat-its-peak-emissions-pledge/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/china-is-on-track-to...
    - mayankkaizen 7y ago
      Apologies for being vague. I agree with your comment completely. I was specifically critical of US and to some extent China.

Sure, but before that rest of the world must make sure they have done everything they can in their own territories. But I doubt that is the case. Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism.

dfcmt 7y ago

>Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism. You've described environmentalism.

fulafel 7y ago

Isn't this argument essentially saying that progress needs to happen in lockstep in all countries, otherwise it's unfair or hypocritical? A sure receipe to gridlock everything. Perfect is the enemy of good, given the urgency it's really necessary to act pragmatically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Mirioron 7y ago
Because it is unfair and hypocritical. That's how western countries became rich, but now all the poor countries are being barred from this path. People in poor countries suffer. You're basically saying that they should have fewer opportunities than others.
- fulafel 7y ago
  People in poor countries also stand to suffer disproportionately from climate change. So it's definitely a good thing in Brazilian self interest too. Of course we should do our best towards fairness as well, but perfectionism amounts to giving up. Edit: also, many rich countries have chopped away their forests and it's now plain that doing sustainable forestry would have been much better even for the time.
- emn13 7y ago
  That's a lovely tale, but is it actually true? The path "western" countries took to riches was long, painful, and destructive. The alternatives available today simply weren't available then. If indeed the only route to modernization were via the exact path medieval Europe ended up taking then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not the case - right? If all you have to burn is wood, and all you can grow are relatively unimproved crops, then that's what you burn and grow. But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Also, brazil is not some weak, destitute country. It's GDP is comparable to italy & france, and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania. At PPP, the average income is pretty much smack on the world average, similar to china and serbia (the poorest EU country). Brazil isn't rich, but neither is it poor; it has the means to spend at least a small amount of effort avoiding deforstation. And let's not forget that deforestation will likely hurt Brazil too in the medium term; trying to avoid that isn't asking for a major sacrifice. It's asking for calm, rationality, and discipline. And yes, that's not at all trivial, but it's not a black and white affair either; some improvement is probably achievable, right?
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania Bulgaria is a poor country. Bringing them up as an example is a bad idea, because life there isn't great. >But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Yeah, and that "help" will come after we've sanctioned them into irrelevance, right? How would you feel if people discussed openly like this that China should buy a large chunk of the US and force the US to submit through sanctions from the world? Sanctions that would likely severely impact the quality of life of the people in the US? (Even then Americans would still be richer than Brazilians are right now.)
    - emn13 7y ago
      Bulgaria's GDP is comparable to brazil's and about world average. It's not poor. It may feel that way, being so close to much richer countries, but it's just not poor in any absolute way. In PPP bulgaria is even well above average and median: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... --- As to sanctions, and the fairness and perception thereof: I don't think that fairness matters; nor should matter. There's no good way to figure out what's "fair" and what's not in the first place, and different people have different perceptions. Waiting for fairness simply implies not acting; and that's too costly. The whole situation isn't trivially generalizable to other countries anyhow; deforestation of the amazon happens in the amazon basin, i.e. largely in Brazil. This circumstance applies here, not elsewhere, and circumstances aren't always irrelevant. Furthermore: the only reason to apply sanctions in the first place (and I hope I wasn't the poster to use that word?) is to induce change. If the sanctions are too mild and change not induced, they're merely harmful. If sanctions do induce change, then there's no "sanctioning into irrelevance" to speak of anymore, right? But personally: I'd hope that sanctions could be applies precisely enough to induce change without impacting quality of life very much for the vast majority of brazilians that aren't chopping away daily. E.g. by prohibiting the trade in goods that encourage chopping as long as chopping persists (beef and vegetable oil IIRC?); If you want fairness; how about a simultaneous push to lower tariffs or other barriers on other goods. The aim should not be to punish, simply to force change. --- Finally, I'm going to emphasize that I really think aiming for international fairness is a terrible idea here - but... if indeed a similar issue were to face the US or EU, I'd vehemently agree that sanctions are warranted. And there are issues where it'd be only fair to apply pressure even today. But the thing is: it's not a tit-for-tat game; the point is to cause change. Sanctions that don't cause change are worse than pointless; they're damaging. And however unfair that may be, I don't think it's going to be easy to leverage the US like that anytime soon. Maybe china, you're right... but then the question is whether they'd do that even if it's in the rest of the world's interest - after all, sanctions typically hurt the sanctioning country too (both directly and indirectly), not to mention cause diplomatic damage. If if china had the leverage, would they "waste" it on something like GHG, or instead prefer to "win" the next trade war? Which brings me to a small dose of realism: it might be benevolent and selfless to apply pressure on Brazil wrt. the rainforest today, but which country is going to waste whatever leverage they have over Brazil and squander diplomatic goodwill over a rainforest that's everyone's problem, most specifically Brazil's too? Brazilians might even be better off in the long run - but countries aren't easily that selfless, so it's not going to happen. This whole discussion is likely going to remain hypothetical.
mayankkaizen 7y ago
You have 1 million dollars and you aren't willing to spend even 100 dollars to fight climate change. I have only 100 dollars and you, the millionaire, are forcing me to spend 50 dollars on that cause. How is that fair? There is nothing good here, much less perfection. US and China, only 2 countries, can do far more to fight climate change. I want Amazon to be saved as much as anybody else. Deforestation of Amazon is something large scaled stuff and protecting it is also a big task. If we want Brazil to stop Amazon deforestation, we must also make sure that counties like US, China must also take similar big steps.
- xvilka 7y ago
  Not sure about the US, especially today, but China does a lot[1] for fighting climate change and deforestation. [1] https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/ https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-it...
- teddyh 7y ago
  It may be unfair. So what? We aren’t aiming for fairness here, we’re supposed to be saving the planet, by any means necessary, by fair means or foul.
- fulafel 7y ago
  I don't think you can claim that all other big emitters are doing so little. EU, China, etc are doing various things. The US is the black sheep today but hopefully they will snap out of the tea party soon. Eg China: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/china-is-on-track-to-beat-its-peak-emissions-pledge/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/china-is-on-track-to...
  - mayankkaizen 7y ago
    Apologies for being vague. I agree with your comment completely. I was specifically critical of US and to some extent China.