5 ms·

True, but besides the point. Globally, that efficiency angle can't produce the CO2 reduction we need. Even if Europe halves its per capita consumption and the U

True, but besides the point. Globally, that efficiency angle can't produce the CO2 reduction we need. Even if Europe halves its per capita consumption and the US reduces it to 25%, there's the rest of the world. There are too many people increasing their energy consumption, with every right to do so.

noobermin 7y ago
The US, a majorly non-industrial country today, is the second major producer of GHG's behind China, a country who exports a load of their products to be consumed by the US. Even so, before China became the power it is today, the US historically produced the majority of CO2 for decades, so in cumulative, is most responsible. The US consumes more calories in food per capita than many other countries, more electrical energy per capita, and so on, not to mention the way our sprawled country is set up happens to distribute such goods and services in the most inefficient means possible in terms of GHG production. I really don't like cheap anti-Americanism that is fashionable in some circles, but when it comes to climate change, the US is in fact the major player when it comes to GHG's. People seem to like to "both sides" the argument to be fair (which is a laudable impulse) to all sides, but a look at the actual data makes it clear the US is the main responsible party when it comes climate change. It's one of those times where extremist voices from say climate activists happens to be truer than what one thinks. That said, of course it still has to be global. The thing is due to the actual magnitude, even if the rest of the world's consumption went to zero, the US alone would further the climate catastrophe because we produce a large fraction of it.
- sergiosgc 7y ago
  Forget the past, do not play the blame game. Be practical. Look at the current state, and how it is expected to evolve: US and Europe, combined, have about a billion people. The world is ten times that. Naturally, part of the remaining 9 billion already live in developed economies. Most don't, however. Those that do not have our standard of living _will_ increase their energy consumption as they develop, and they will develop. Any decrease in EU+US energy consumption, be it via efficiency gains, be it via a very doubtful voluntary decrease in quality of life, will get wiped by the rest of the world developing. I can comfortably state this: If we do not change energy sources towards clean energy, no other measure will save us. Working other avenues is an illusion that will keep us busy while driving towards the abyss.
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    Don't underestimate the impact of leadership. There's no time to wait for renewables to be more economical, so there's going to be cost involved in the transition. If the wealthiest and largest total contributor shirks its responsibility, why on Earth should anyone else lift a finger? Conversely, once Western countries are below the per capita emissions of China, real political pressure can be applied.
    - sergiosgc 7y ago
      The US is much less of a world leader than North Americans think it is. Europe doesn't even try to grab the spot. Countries will do what is most efficient for them. Luckily, as solar is now cheaper than coal, it starts to look like the most efficient option is clean. Luckily, as I said before.
      - reitzensteinm 7y ago
        Solar is not cheaper than coal. That's nonsense. The storage problem is yet to be solved. Economics won't get us out of this mess.

noobermin 7y ago

The US, a majorly non-industrial country today, is the second major producer of GHG's behind China, a country who exports a load of their products to be consumed by the US. Even so, before China became the power it is today, the US historically produced the majority of CO2 for decades, so in cumulative, is most responsible. The US consumes more calories in food per capita than many other countries, more electrical energy per capita, and so on, not to mention the way our sprawled country is set up happens to distribute such goods and services in the most inefficient means possible in terms of GHG production. I really don't like cheap anti-Americanism that is fashionable in some circles, but when it comes to climate change, the US is in fact the major player when it comes to GHG's. People seem to like to "both sides" the argument to be fair (which is a laudable impulse) to all sides, but a look at the actual data makes it clear the US is the main responsible party when it comes climate change. It's one of those times where extremist voices from say climate activists happens to be truer than what one thinks. That said, of course it still has to be global. The thing is due to the actual magnitude, even if the rest of the world's consumption went to zero, the US alone would further the climate catastrophe because we produce a large fraction of it.

sergiosgc 7y ago
Forget the past, do not play the blame game. Be practical. Look at the current state, and how it is expected to evolve: US and Europe, combined, have about a billion people. The world is ten times that. Naturally, part of the remaining 9 billion already live in developed economies. Most don't, however. Those that do not have our standard of living _will_ increase their energy consumption as they develop, and they will develop. Any decrease in EU+US energy consumption, be it via efficiency gains, be it via a very doubtful voluntary decrease in quality of life, will get wiped by the rest of the world developing. I can comfortably state this: If we do not change energy sources towards clean energy, no other measure will save us. Working other avenues is an illusion that will keep us busy while driving towards the abyss.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  Don't underestimate the impact of leadership. There's no time to wait for renewables to be more economical, so there's going to be cost involved in the transition. If the wealthiest and largest total contributor shirks its responsibility, why on Earth should anyone else lift a finger? Conversely, once Western countries are below the per capita emissions of China, real political pressure can be applied.
  - sergiosgc 7y ago
    The US is much less of a world leader than North Americans think it is. Europe doesn't even try to grab the spot. Countries will do what is most efficient for them. Luckily, as solar is now cheaper than coal, it starts to look like the most efficient option is clean. Luckily, as I said before.
    - reitzensteinm 7y ago
      Solar is not cheaper than coal. That's nonsense. The storage problem is yet to be solved. Economics won't get us out of this mess.