6 ms·

And it was fairly recently I was reading a similar article about Mexico and coal: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/mexico-coal-fossil-fuels-climat

And it was fairly recently I was reading a similar article about Mexico and coal: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/mexico-coal-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis-amlo https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/mexico-coal-fo... While the Western industrialized countries are starting to make modest progress in fighting climate change, this is not happening in much of the third world.

echelon 6y ago
People worldwide need education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility. We have to solve so many other problems in the world before clean energy really works. Nothing we're doing will matter if the rest of the world keeps dumping carbon into the atmosphere. Nobody will admit this. We're just posturing here. We can't tell these economies to turn green (it doesn't make sense for them to!), yet we're not pouring in money to help fix the structural blockers. We need to put manufacturing, finance, resources, education, and more into developing economies. It's a win-win. Developed nations can benefit from cheap labor while developing nations catch up and get an influx of export activity that spurs their growth. Eventually we'll all reach economic parity and can find consensus on this problem. A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.
- makotech222 6y ago
  Your either ignorant, or racist https://i.redd.it/0yksckaayzt61.png https://i.redd.it/0yksckaayzt61.png Western countries are by far the most polluting, per person, than most all other countries combined. Its westerners who need to get their shit together, not the rest of the world.
- mantas 6y ago
  .. or economical parity will mean that West becomes poorer to match the rest of the world. And then nobody will care about pollution. It's a wee hard sell to locals in developed nation. Hey, let's move jobs abroad and lets use our resources to prop up other nations. What is left back home? Why bother paying taxes if objective is far away and and far in the future.
  - humanafterall 6y ago
    MMT, basic income, and degrowth economics explore this whole topic
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Would you rather be poor or face the collapse of global civilization?
    - Haga 6y ago
      Both at current course. Normally humanity would start a war and science it's way out of dilemmas with a economy research blockades removed.
    - oblio 6y ago
      For most people it's: A) be poor now versus B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years. They'll chose B) everytime.
      - blackoil 6y ago
        Do you have any historical examples of this? As I believe in opposite.
        oblio 6y ago
        Tragedy of the commons is a thing for a reason. Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons". Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall. It's human nature, unfortunately.
        mantas 6y ago
        And new regime is usually coming to get rich fast, not fight for a noble goal achievable in 100 years. Even if leaders are naive idealists, usually the masses get behind them for a quick buck. I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  Developed countries could pay to build nuclear power in the developing world. Terms being that the foreign country paying has 100% autonomy to build and operate the plants for their lifetime. It’d create good jobs for developed nations workforce that gets sent to build the facilities. It’d create low cost green energy in the developing world. Not to mention tons of new economic activity in the area these get built to serve the foreigners coming in to build the plants.
- ralph84 6y ago
  We already tried this. After 40 years of this policy towards China, China is an environmental disaster and burns more coal than the all of the rest of the world combined.
  - aiioquip 6y ago
    Not per capita, though
    - pepperonipizza 6y ago
      Chinese citizens emit more CO2 per capita than citizens from the EU, and since 2013. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...
      - thisarticle 6y ago
        How much of the CO2 per capita that China emits goes into making products for EU/US citizens? Is that factored in?
        KitDuncan 6y ago
        Probably not. We want to feel good about ourselves, so we twist the numbers in our favor and can point at China as a "reason" not to change anything here.
      - lnsru 6y ago
        I really hate to write this, but this is outsourced CO2 from EU. EU manufacturing is dead. I look at my home office around me - everything is made in China. Some pieces of furniture are EU made, but the rest - made in China things. Old Tektronix scope is “made in USA”, but it is really old.
        imtringued 6y ago
        Old numbers from the top of my head: 14% China's emissions can be directly attributed to Chinese exports. The domestic economy is a much bigger source of pollution, unless of course you consider the entirety of China a western colony that only exists to export products to the west. I consider the latter option untenable.
- marsven_422 6y ago
  People need Life, liberty and property! All I see from you greens is rebranded Marxism.
- belorn 6y ago
  We do not grant people permission to cause harm on a national level just because there is a lack of social economic factors like education, health, economy, freedom, and mobility. It is acknowledge that those factors play a part in why people do harm, and providing social support reduces the overall rate of harm, but we still have laws that forbid harm. I don't see any good argument why we should give explicit permission to do harm on a global level. We can and should acknowledge that a lack of education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility are contributing factors for pollution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
risfriend 6y ago
While US is reducing the coal usage at a rapid rate, the current absolute value of coal usage for power in US is similar to that of India as US generates almost 4 times the power of India https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#Electricity_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#El...

echelon 6y ago

People worldwide need education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility. We have to solve so many other problems in the world before clean energy really works. Nothing we're doing will matter if the rest of the world keeps dumping carbon into the atmosphere. Nobody will admit this. We're just posturing here. We can't tell these economies to turn green (it doesn't make sense for them to!), yet we're not pouring in money to help fix the structural blockers. We need to put manufacturing, finance, resources, education, and more into developing economies. It's a win-win. Developed nations can benefit from cheap labor while developing nations catch up and get an influx of export activity that spurs their growth. Eventually we'll all reach economic parity and can find consensus on this problem. A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.

makotech222 6y ago
Your either ignorant, or racist https://i.redd.it/0yksckaayzt61.png https://i.redd.it/0yksckaayzt61.png Western countries are by far the most polluting, per person, than most all other countries combined. Its westerners who need to get their shit together, not the rest of the world.
mantas 6y ago
.. or economical parity will mean that West becomes poorer to match the rest of the world. And then nobody will care about pollution. It's a wee hard sell to locals in developed nation. Hey, let's move jobs abroad and lets use our resources to prop up other nations. What is left back home? Why bother paying taxes if objective is far away and and far in the future.
- humanafterall 6y ago
  MMT, basic income, and degrowth economics explore this whole topic
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Would you rather be poor or face the collapse of global civilization?
  - Haga 6y ago
    Both at current course. Normally humanity would start a war and science it's way out of dilemmas with a economy research blockades removed.
  - oblio 6y ago
    For most people it's: A) be poor now versus B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years. They'll chose B) everytime.
    - blackoil 6y ago
      Do you have any historical examples of this? As I believe in opposite.
      - oblio 6y ago
        Tragedy of the commons is a thing for a reason. Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons". Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall. It's human nature, unfortunately.
        mantas 6y ago
        And new regime is usually coming to get rich fast, not fight for a noble goal achievable in 100 years. Even if leaders are naive idealists, usually the masses get behind them for a quick buck. I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
gogopuppygogo 6y ago
Developed countries could pay to build nuclear power in the developing world. Terms being that the foreign country paying has 100% autonomy to build and operate the plants for their lifetime. It’d create good jobs for developed nations workforce that gets sent to build the facilities. It’d create low cost green energy in the developing world. Not to mention tons of new economic activity in the area these get built to serve the foreigners coming in to build the plants.
ralph84 6y ago
We already tried this. After 40 years of this policy towards China, China is an environmental disaster and burns more coal than the all of the rest of the world combined.
- aiioquip 6y ago
  Not per capita, though
  - pepperonipizza 6y ago
    Chinese citizens emit more CO2 per capita than citizens from the EU, and since 2013. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...
    - thisarticle 6y ago
      How much of the CO2 per capita that China emits goes into making products for EU/US citizens? Is that factored in?
      - KitDuncan 6y ago
        Probably not. We want to feel good about ourselves, so we twist the numbers in our favor and can point at China as a "reason" not to change anything here.
    - lnsru 6y ago
      I really hate to write this, but this is outsourced CO2 from EU. EU manufacturing is dead. I look at my home office around me - everything is made in China. Some pieces of furniture are EU made, but the rest - made in China things. Old Tektronix scope is “made in USA”, but it is really old.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        Old numbers from the top of my head: 14% China's emissions can be directly attributed to Chinese exports. The domestic economy is a much bigger source of pollution, unless of course you consider the entirety of China a western colony that only exists to export products to the west. I consider the latter option untenable.
marsven_422 6y ago
People need Life, liberty and property! All I see from you greens is rebranded Marxism.
belorn 6y ago
We do not grant people permission to cause harm on a national level just because there is a lack of social economic factors like education, health, economy, freedom, and mobility. It is acknowledge that those factors play a part in why people do harm, and providing social support reduces the overall rate of harm, but we still have laws that forbid harm. I don't see any good argument why we should give explicit permission to do harm on a global level. We can and should acknowledge that a lack of education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility are contributing factors for pollution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

risfriend 6y ago

While US is reducing the coal usage at a rapid rate, the current absolute value of coal usage for power in US is similar to that of India as US generates almost 4 times the power of India https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#Electricity_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#El...