4 ms·

We can still produce less carbon emissions without being in the agreement. The US is only 20% of total C02 output. Even if it were 0, China and India are stil

We can still produce less carbon emissions without being in the agreement. The US is only 20% of total C02 output. Even if it were 0, China and India are still ruining the climate and the Paris accords didn't stop this. Per-capita doesn't matter. Reality doesn't care about fairness.

Avamander 7y ago
Per-land area US is still one of the largest polluters.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  That's irrelevant, what matters is absolute production per country, because of politics.
  - lazysheepherd 7y ago
    Make slightly more relevant with your personal stance then. Because it is very much relevant.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    So, the solution to the climate crisis is to split the US into 50 separate countries then? I mean, they could still cooperate in some sort of federation, united in their common goals, some sort of union of states or something, but without the climate impact!
lazysheepherd 7y ago
Whether US may or may not reduce emissions is completely irrelevant. There's an accord, and US is out. Period. It's a prisoner's dilemma[0] instance we are all in, so finger-pointing does not help with anything, for anyone. Furthermore, countries you point very lightly make up almost half the world population. And their emissions per capita are laughably low(especially India) compared to US. 1: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp
11235813213455 7y ago
20% "only"? USA is 7% of all countries superficies, 4% of all countries population Also, other countries with higher pollution level should never be a reference or excuse
- MR4D 7y ago
  But the US is over 24% of global GDP [0], so that means we pollute less per unit of Global GDP than the combined rest of the world on average. I'd say there's room to improve, but if we compared all countries this way, we might have a good conversation. For instance, Germany may be skewed as high pollution per capita, but roughly 1/2 of their economy is for exports. Penalizing them because they make things there for people around the world wouldn't seem fair. [0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/infographic-heres-how-the-global-gdp-is-divvied-up/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/infographic-heres-how-t...
- remotecool 7y ago
  Yes, it should be an excuse and a reference. If the US is going to ruin its economy by being forced off of fossil fuels, other countries shouldn't be able to use it as an advantage to take power and continue to ruin the environment.
  - 24gttghh 7y ago
    Where would our economy be ruined by transitioning away from fossil fuels? The renewable sector has insane room for growth and employment. The fact that we'd all be way healthier with less pollution in the air and water would lead directly to less medical costs and less time missed from work and higher productivity!
24gttghh 7y ago
Oh, we're only 20% of a global genocide, so it's okay. That's what your argument sounds like.
- remotecool 7y ago
  Right. So 80% of a global genocide can be ignored? Two can play this game.
  - 24gttghh 7y ago
    You missed the point. Many people (myself included are concerned about BOTH/All of it. Those who point out that we are responsible for "only" 20% usually have disingenuous motives toward shifting blame on to someone else, and towards inaction.
    - remotecool 7y ago
      Well, if only 20% of carbon emissions are cleared, the world is still doomed. My point is that nobody wants do do anything about the other 80%. No punishment and excuses are given that they are 'developing nations', so they can freely pollute the earth and destroy the environment. We really should be concentrating o n that 80%, and we aren't, which makes me question the motives of things like the Paris agreement. While we bend over backwards to save the environment, these nations just use it as a way to boost their own economies while continuing to pollute and break every agreement and lie about it.

Avamander 7y ago

Per-land area US is still one of the largest polluters.

ekianjo 7y ago
That's irrelevant, what matters is absolute production per country, because of politics.
- lazysheepherd 7y ago
  Make slightly more relevant with your personal stance then. Because it is very much relevant.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  So, the solution to the climate crisis is to split the US into 50 separate countries then? I mean, they could still cooperate in some sort of federation, united in their common goals, some sort of union of states or something, but without the climate impact!

lazysheepherd 7y ago

Whether US may or may not reduce emissions is completely irrelevant. There's an accord, and US is out. Period. It's a prisoner's dilemma[0] instance we are all in, so finger-pointing does not help with anything, for anyone. Furthermore, countries you point very lightly make up almost half the world population. And their emissions per capita are laughably low(especially India) compared to US. 1: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp

11235813213455 7y ago

20% "only"? USA is 7% of all countries superficies, 4% of all countries population Also, other countries with higher pollution level should never be a reference or excuse

MR4D 7y ago
But the US is over 24% of global GDP [0], so that means we pollute less per unit of Global GDP than the combined rest of the world on average. I'd say there's room to improve, but if we compared all countries this way, we might have a good conversation. For instance, Germany may be skewed as high pollution per capita, but roughly 1/2 of their economy is for exports. Penalizing them because they make things there for people around the world wouldn't seem fair. [0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/infographic-heres-how-the-global-gdp-is-divvied-up/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/infographic-heres-how-t...
remotecool 7y ago
Yes, it should be an excuse and a reference. If the US is going to ruin its economy by being forced off of fossil fuels, other countries shouldn't be able to use it as an advantage to take power and continue to ruin the environment.
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  Where would our economy be ruined by transitioning away from fossil fuels? The renewable sector has insane room for growth and employment. The fact that we'd all be way healthier with less pollution in the air and water would lead directly to less medical costs and less time missed from work and higher productivity!

24gttghh 7y ago

Oh, we're only 20% of a global genocide, so it's okay. That's what your argument sounds like.

remotecool 7y ago
Right. So 80% of a global genocide can be ignored? Two can play this game.
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  You missed the point. Many people (myself included are concerned about BOTH/All of it. Those who point out that we are responsible for "only" 20% usually have disingenuous motives toward shifting blame on to someone else, and towards inaction.
  - remotecool 7y ago
    Well, if only 20% of carbon emissions are cleared, the world is still doomed. My point is that nobody wants do do anything about the other 80%. No punishment and excuses are given that they are 'developing nations', so they can freely pollute the earth and destroy the environment. We really should be concentrating o n that 80%, and we aren't, which makes me question the motives of things like the Paris agreement. While we bend over backwards to save the environment, these nations just use it as a way to boost their own economies while continuing to pollute and break every agreement and lie about it.