3 ms·

> China? Russia? US? I have a suspicion that none of them would want to be the "guilty" party that kept polluting. Right now, of the three, the US is still th

> China? Russia? US? I have a suspicion that none of them would want to be the "guilty" party that kept polluting. Right now, of the three, the US is still the biggest per-capita polluter by far (about 2x more than China). China is already adopting greener policies, so there is a good chance it will never overtake the US on that metric. I do think that the US (or Russia, who aren't too far behind them) will eventually follow either China, or one of the European countries leading by example. Let me preempt something here: I posted a similar comment some time ago, and the response to that was "but total CO2!" - which is a demonstrably absurd way to measure a countries progress on that front. Let's not get into that again.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
The problem right there is that China will increase their pollution just by raising their living standards to the Western levels. So if they don't play ball, the whole game is over. In my understanding China doesn't care about the climate as much as about the air their people have to breath. Their environmental policies seem to be targeted exclusively at public health issues, and then only the more serious ones. The bigger, necessary solutions are not implemented anywhere, yet. Those countries who do not participate will leap ahead in industrial development, while those who do may not be able to slow climate change enough.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > In my understanding China doesn't care about the climate as much as about the air their people have to breath. Their environmental policies seem to be targeted exclusively at public health issues, and then only the more serious ones. Public health issues like air pollution. That might be the reason they're investing so heavily in renewables, but it doesn't change the fact that they are. The percentage of renewable energy in China has steadily increased over the years. They are now at 25% vs just 11% in the US. I'd have to look up their nuclear numbers though.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    I don't think that a desire for slowing climate change or some kind of compliance with the international trend, is the driver of their renewable energies strategy. China has only very little fossil fuel available, and coal tends to be labor intensive (another thing they are running out of) and very dirty locally. So to meet their energy demands and be less dependent on the oil market, they probably should invest in renewable sources. And it doesn't hurt that they can build up the production capacity for such sources through public investment. They are also building lots of nuclear plants. Which is a lot easier when citizens generally don't feel like objecting much.
masklinn 7y ago
> I have a suspicion that none of them would want to be the "guilty" party that kept polluting. Russia really doesn't care, they see AGW as unlocking the potential of their great north and screwing their geopolitical rivals. China is kinda adopting "greener politices" in the sense that their mix strongly includes nukes and renewables. That's in no small part because they can't ramp up production fast enough even firing on all cylinders. And they are much more threatened by AGW: the North China Plain in particular is extremely low lying, and both a major population center and a bread basket. The Yangtze delta has the same issue, Hefei (some 400km inland) is only 37m above sea level. Now the seas are not planned to rise that high (probably), but sea level rise means more saltwater infiltration into arable soil, and more climactic issues reaching further inland. Plus much of China is dependent on himalayan glaciers for its water.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

The problem right there is that China will increase their pollution just by raising their living standards to the Western levels. So if they don't play ball, the whole game is over. In my understanding China doesn't care about the climate as much as about the air their people have to breath. Their environmental policies seem to be targeted exclusively at public health issues, and then only the more serious ones. The bigger, necessary solutions are not implemented anywhere, yet. Those countries who do not participate will leap ahead in industrial development, while those who do may not be able to slow climate change enough.

chmod775 7y ago
> In my understanding China doesn't care about the climate as much as about the air their people have to breath. Their environmental policies seem to be targeted exclusively at public health issues, and then only the more serious ones. Public health issues like air pollution. That might be the reason they're investing so heavily in renewables, but it doesn't change the fact that they are. The percentage of renewable energy in China has steadily increased over the years. They are now at 25% vs just 11% in the US. I'd have to look up their nuclear numbers though.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I don't think that a desire for slowing climate change or some kind of compliance with the international trend, is the driver of their renewable energies strategy. China has only very little fossil fuel available, and coal tends to be labor intensive (another thing they are running out of) and very dirty locally. So to meet their energy demands and be less dependent on the oil market, they probably should invest in renewable sources. And it doesn't hurt that they can build up the production capacity for such sources through public investment. They are also building lots of nuclear plants. Which is a lot easier when citizens generally don't feel like objecting much.

masklinn 7y ago

> I have a suspicion that none of them would want to be the "guilty" party that kept polluting. Russia really doesn't care, they see AGW as unlocking the potential of their great north and screwing their geopolitical rivals. China is kinda adopting "greener politices" in the sense that their mix strongly includes nukes and renewables. That's in no small part because they can't ramp up production fast enough even firing on all cylinders. And they are much more threatened by AGW: the North China Plain in particular is extremely low lying, and both a major population center and a bread basket. The Yangtze delta has the same issue, Hefei (some 400km inland) is only 37m above sea level. Now the seas are not planned to rise that high (probably), but sea level rise means more saltwater infiltration into arable soil, and more climactic issues reaching further inland. Plus much of China is dependent on himalayan glaciers for its water.