4 ms·

Yet another Western centric litany of small palliative course corrections. They might have worked in 1950s, but are simply insignificant today. The world is rap

by pacala 7y ago

Yet another Western centric litany of small palliative course corrections. They might have worked in 1950s, but are simply insignificant today. The world is rapidly changing. * Global population is exploding. We passed 2B as recently as 1927, now we are close to 8B. Most of this historically unprecedented tsunami of people aspires to an energy-rich lifestyle, by hook or by crook. * Most of the global carbon emissions are produced by non-Western countries. Led by China, whose emissions are more than US + EU combined. * How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions?

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
The population is projected to stabilise and then fall in the future. Most of the future growth is from people not dying as fast rather than people being born. Are you intentionally using per country rather than per capita numbers. This appears to be a talking point I see it so often, but it's hard to tell if people are just repeating it without thought. Carbon tariffs let you penalise any country that doesn't play by the rules. We already do similar for other environmental and social reasons. Plus, the environmental option is often cheaper and more efficient, it's only a short term hit to entrenched interests. So really you should be worried about African nations leapfrogging you to cheap solar based manufacturing while you get locked into expensive fossil fuels to keep Republican donors rich.
- pacala 7y ago
  Emissions = number of capitas * per capita emissions. Most people aspire to a western lifestyle. Multiply global population with western lifestyle emissions. This is wildly unsustainable. Minor western lifestyle tweaks are not making a dent. Something major will have to give.
triceratops 7y ago
> How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions? Tariffs. Import duties. Trading blocs that exclude anyone who isn't on board. It's already been done with copyright and other IP.
archi42 7y ago
Ad 1: Yeah, so what? There are just no ethical things we can do about this; if you have a good idea, I am open to suggestions. (And no, "war" is not a good idea). Ad 2: A lot of goods used by us are produced in China, so there are a lot of externalized emissions (hence the "kwh used for production & transportation requirement). Ad 3: You hope the other countries realize they're committing civilizational suicide. Again: I'm open for good ideas. (And again no, "war" is still not a good idea). So, let me summarize: You realized it's a global problem. What's your conclusion? Judging by what you write: Just do nothing and hope it's still okay-ish when we turn 80/90?
WorldMaker 7y ago
The earliest Malthusians were wrong in a lot of their models, but especially in their models regarding climate. Global population is rarely more than a red herring in climate models, and should be among the least of our concerns right now. So too the "global carbon emissions arms race" seems to be a wildly popular red herring. Yes, China has a brief window now where they have the highest emissions, but China is also moving the fastest at mitigating carbon emissions and is on track at moving a lot faster than the US or EU in cracking down on carbon emissions. Perhaps ironically to someone of your apparent perspective, but the higher population density of China, and predominance in massive river and coastal cities, has left China with far more incentive and immediate climate crisis concerns than most of the US and some of Europe are currently facing. The US and EU "developed world" seems more at risk of being "rolled over" by the efficiency gains China is making in "green" markets than any threat that China is just going stockpile gas in some Mad Max style race to the bottom (of the oil well). Your next car could be Chinese because they are taking Battery Electric seriously, whereas US manufacturers still have some weird idea that the market for BEV is just a toy to play with. (At least the EU manufacturers aren't rolling over and practically giving the market away.)

by pacala 7y ago

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

The population is projected to stabilise and then fall in the future. Most of the future growth is from people not dying as fast rather than people being born. Are you intentionally using per country rather than per capita numbers. This appears to be a talking point I see it so often, but it's hard to tell if people are just repeating it without thought. Carbon tariffs let you penalise any country that doesn't play by the rules. We already do similar for other environmental and social reasons. Plus, the environmental option is often cheaper and more efficient, it's only a short term hit to entrenched interests. So really you should be worried about African nations leapfrogging you to cheap solar based manufacturing while you get locked into expensive fossil fuels to keep Republican donors rich.

pacala 7y ago
Emissions = number of capitas * per capita emissions. Most people aspire to a western lifestyle. Multiply global population with western lifestyle emissions. This is wildly unsustainable. Minor western lifestyle tweaks are not making a dent. Something major will have to give.

triceratops 7y ago

> How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions? Tariffs. Import duties. Trading blocs that exclude anyone who isn't on board. It's already been done with copyright and other IP.

archi42 7y ago

Ad 1: Yeah, so what? There are just no ethical things we can do about this; if you have a good idea, I am open to suggestions. (And no, "war" is not a good idea). Ad 2: A lot of goods used by us are produced in China, so there are a lot of externalized emissions (hence the "kwh used for production & transportation requirement). Ad 3: You hope the other countries realize they're committing civilizational suicide. Again: I'm open for good ideas. (And again no, "war" is still not a good idea). So, let me summarize: You realized it's a global problem. What's your conclusion? Judging by what you write: Just do nothing and hope it's still okay-ish when we turn 80/90?

WorldMaker 7y ago

The earliest Malthusians were wrong in a lot of their models, but especially in their models regarding climate. Global population is rarely more than a red herring in climate models, and should be among the least of our concerns right now. So too the "global carbon emissions arms race" seems to be a wildly popular red herring. Yes, China has a brief window now where they have the highest emissions, but China is also moving the fastest at mitigating carbon emissions and is on track at moving a lot faster than the US or EU in cracking down on carbon emissions. Perhaps ironically to someone of your apparent perspective, but the higher population density of China, and predominance in massive river and coastal cities, has left China with far more incentive and immediate climate crisis concerns than most of the US and some of Europe are currently facing. The US and EU "developed world" seems more at risk of being "rolled over" by the efficiency gains China is making in "green" markets than any threat that China is just going stockpile gas in some Mad Max style race to the bottom (of the oil well). Your next car could be Chinese because they are taking Battery Electric seriously, whereas US manufacturers still have some weird idea that the market for BEV is just a toy to play with. (At least the EU manufacturers aren't rolling over and practically giving the market away.)