5 ms·

You cannot hinder developing countries from the comfort of living in a develop country. The fact that China agreed to a year is amazing. If the US would have ke

• dannyw 6y ago
  The reality is that production just moved to China. It isn’t better for the planet. It’s a deal that’s been hijacked by business interests; just like the Cali proposition written by Uber that’s “for drivers”. You will never get a hundred countries to voluntarily agree to prioritising climate change over prioritising business interests.
  • UncleMeat 6y ago
    I'd be much more receptive to these "the Paris Agreement wasn't even that strong to begin with" if an alternative was being proposed. But the alternative that the Trump administration is choosing is to attack scientists and deny the problem in the first place.
• the-pigeon 6y ago
  Why exactly? China has shown time and time again that China will do what China feels like doing. Meaning them committing to doing something 10 years doesn't mean they will do it at all. We clearly don't really care about climate change or stuff like this would be about taxing pollution through tariffs and other means. Rules like this just move the manufacturing and thus pollution to different countries. Which is pointless when the goal is to reduce climate change.
  • oblio 6y ago
    I know this would have sounded absurd a few years ago, but the authoritarian Chinese regime is currently more rational than the democratic US regime. They actually know, understand, and to some degree care, that they're basically 1/5th of the world's population and if they don't get pollution under control the entire world will burn.
    • ceilingcorner 6y ago
      The CCP has absolutely zero problem suppressing its own citizens if they threaten the government’s power, I seriously doubt they care any more about the rest of the world.
      • freeflight 6y ago
        > The CCP has absolutely zero problem suppressing its own citizens if they threaten the government’s power That is a reality under pretty much any regime in the truest sense of the words meaning, which contrary to popular use is not negative but rather descriptive.
      • oblio 6y ago
        I think you misunderstood my comment. They care in the sense that: the whole world burns - China is part of the world - China will burn - their citizens will riot making 1989 look like child's play - the CCP will go up in flames, too. Cynical logic, but logic nonetheless. They don't care in the "care bear" sense.
• dalbasal 6y ago
  Ultimately, both arguments are true. Developing nations have a claim. It's deeply unfair that wealthy nations who have emitted a lot of carbon get permission to keep emitting more as a result. But also.. if developing nations fully stake this claim by increasing their emissions or even flatlining then the game is lost. This is the problem with thinking in absolutes. The alternative is making some concessions and moving forward regardless because of belief in the mission. Europe is already in the same per capita ballpark as china. If the US/Australia/etc had gotten themselves near this per capita level, the politics of developed/developing economies would have softened somewhat. The fairness issues aren't as sharp once emissions are similar. Realistically, we are not politically structured (as a world) to deal with carbon reduction well. Nationalism is the dominant paradigm both structurally/politically and ideologically. It's a weak paradigm for global action. I emphasize the politics over the economics, though obviously both intertwine. Long term, there are economic upsides as well as downsides to carbon reduction. As a blind (long) bet, I'd always bet on new energy paradigms being a good thing. The long tail upside is especially interesting. Within a functioning polity, that's something you can work. The world isn't.
• matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > now that the US basically proven to be untrustworthy Was the US ever trustworthy?
  • Filligree 6y ago
    They were better at pretending.
• everdrive 6y ago
  >You cannot hinder developing countries from the comfort of living in a develop country. Yes you can. The world's problems are not really personified entities, where hypocrisy is a valid concern. China is a problem.
  • TeMPOraL 6y ago
    No, you can't. First of all, it's not China that's going to be the problem, but the rest of Asia and Africa. Secondly, if we deny them the comfort, they'll do it anyway, and we'll have to either let them or go to war. Wouldn't it be better to instead let the developing world leapfrog fossil fuel energy generation, and go straight to renewables (and possibly nuclear)? By e.g. donating technology, IP and expertise, and otherwise incentivize them to skip the dirty tech, at no loss in QoL improvements of their citizens?
  • bserge 6y ago
    China has a lower level of pollution per capita than many other countries, including the US. Think about it, they have more people than the US, Canada, the EU, UK, Russia and Australia combined. That's some major need for energy, which everyone else just blames on "China". I think they're doing pretty well in comparison. While I'm at it, I need to mention their one child policy basically stopped hundreds of millions people from ever existing. A whole lot of pollution that never happened. Something no other country has done, and I think China should have some recognition for that.