2 ms·

This is not a good article and it has a very patronizing/inflammatory title. There is only 1 figure and that one is , if anything , hopeful. It shows that GDP

This is not a good article and it has a very patronizing/inflammatory title. There is only 1 figure and that one is , if anything , hopeful. It shows that GDP growth has bent the curve of CO2 since the 2010s. They seem to be arguing about what was happening in the 20th century without taking into account current trends? This is supposed to be a review, but it doesn't really review much, they make various statements with references, but they often do not state the facts which they are referring to. There are also grammatical errors An example: > The positional consumption behaviour of the super-affluent thus drives consumption norms across the population, for instance through their excessive air travel, as documented by Gössling73. That Gosling73 study is a 2017 study of 10 celebrities including Meg whitman, emma watson, felix von derleden and Karl lagerfeld (are these people considered influential?) Celebrities and the "affluent" are different things. Plus i believe most air travel in the past 10 years was "influenced" by middle-to-low income influencers on youtube/instagram/etc. Importantly, that paper presents conjectures but no data that people are actually following the flight patterns of celebrities. > Whilst a number of countries in the global North have recently managed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while still growing their economies30, it is highly unlikely that such decoupling will occur more widely in the near future, rapidly enough at global scale and for other environmental impacts Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ?

ovi256 6y ago
>Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ? Those countries pay high costs for their energy because their alternative energy sources are in no way cost competitive yet. They can afford those high costs. Less rich countries will never adopt fancy, expensive technologies if they're not cost effective. India and most of Asia are building coal plants as we speak, because they're cost effective (to them). They've also, at most COP meetings, pushed back any initiative to tax carbon emissions, as they see that (probably justly) only as a brake on their development. Their social stability would fall apart quickly if they can't deliver the economic development. For these reasons, the majority of future carbon emissions are projected to occur in Asia and Africa. There's very little Western countries can do, except some novel form of imposing their will on other countries, which would quickly and justly be denounced as neo-colonialist.

ovi256 6y ago

>Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ? Those countries pay high costs for their energy because their alternative energy sources are in no way cost competitive yet. They can afford those high costs. Less rich countries will never adopt fancy, expensive technologies if they're not cost effective. India and most of Asia are building coal plants as we speak, because they're cost effective (to them). They've also, at most COP meetings, pushed back any initiative to tax carbon emissions, as they see that (probably justly) only as a brake on their development. Their social stability would fall apart quickly if they can't deliver the economic development. For these reasons, the majority of future carbon emissions are projected to occur in Asia and Africa. There's very little Western countries can do, except some novel form of imposing their will on other countries, which would quickly and justly be denounced as neo-colonialist.