3 ms·
> Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case). I fail to see your logic. If many people
by eloff 7y ago
> Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case).
I fail to see your logic. If many people consume less petroleum maybe the price goes down and others consume more, but I don't see how they're going to consume more than what was the state of things in the first place.
Honestly it seems like a shallow rationalization to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. That might sound harsh but I'm a firm believer in extreme ownership as espoused by Jocko Willink. I'm allergic to excuses and rationalizations.
- koheripbal 7y agoIt's very simple. If Country A reduces CO2 production by closing a few factories, and Country B increases CO2 production to replace that market demand, Country A will have spent economic resources in making that change, and Country B would simply be producing what A+B produced before. It's a net negative for the world.
- eloff 7y agoI see, you're talking not about unilateral personal choices, but unilateral country choices. It's not that simple, there are many unilateral choices a country can make that would not have a net negative effect. For example if you close a coal power plant in Virginia, China is not simply going to build one and sell the power to the US - there are physical limitations there. You have a valid point that a country needs to think about unintentional consequences of their decisions, something politicians are notoriously bad at, but claiming that all unilateral action is net negative is such a ludicrous strawman that I don't actually beleive that's your position on the subject.