4 ms·

The strongest argument IMO is that the largest polluters are countries like China who will simply do nothing making our economic sacrifices nearly meaningless.

The strongest argument IMO is that the largest polluters are countries like China who will simply do nothing making our economic sacrifices nearly meaningless. Then the relative economic benefit of ignoring climate change will further pump up the economies of countries like China who will then pollute more and gain more power, etc. I don’t know what the solution is, if humans are even socially/politically capable of a solution, but make no mistake this is how it would play out if the western nations were all to take drastic measures against climate change. Ultimately, the issue is that it is a competitive advantage to ignore climate change (right up until it’s too late), and global competition dictates our social evolution. We may need green tech that is so overwhelmingly cost efficient that nobody will ever want to pollute again.

quenix 5y ago
Didn't China pledge to go fully carbon-neutral by 2050 or something?
jeroenhd 5y ago
Per capita, China does way better than many other countries when it comes to carbon emissions. Yes, as a country, they're the largest contributor to global warming, but they also have the highest population in the world. Some countries like the United States release over twice as much CO2 per capita. As India gains a higher standard for its citizens, their emissions will quickly multiply the coming years from what is already a significant factor in worldwide emissions. And to be fair, why would China or India care about becoming greener when the United States, with all of their wealth and power, can expel 16.1 tons per capita per year without repercussions while China gets told of for their 8.0 tons? Let alone India, with their meager 1.9 tons per capita; why people from these countries be expected to give up on the quality of life and luxuries when the Americans get off scot free? The oil kingdoms won't be giving up their emissions any time soon, tiny, overpopulated islands won't either, but even large countries such as Australia, Canada and Estonia pump CO2 in the air at twice the rate of China. Saying "China won't do it so what's the point" is just pandering to the polluting masses to pretend they can't do a thing to change the world. Telling people that it's okay to let the tyre fire burn itself out because there's a much bigger tyre fire four streets down is still a terrible idea. People won't give up driving cars every day, they won't give up AC and they won't give up cheap plastic. The best we can do is probably what we're doing now, using "green" technologies to delay our inevitable demise by reducing the footprint. Green alternatives that are cheaper or as cheap as traditional items won't be available because oil is dirt cheap and easy to produce, the infrastructure is already there and everything from gas to processed food depends on oil products.

quenix 5y ago

Didn't China pledge to go fully carbon-neutral by 2050 or something?

jeroenhd 5y ago

Per capita, China does way better than many other countries when it comes to carbon emissions. Yes, as a country, they're the largest contributor to global warming, but they also have the highest population in the world. Some countries like the United States release over twice as much CO2 per capita. As India gains a higher standard for its citizens, their emissions will quickly multiply the coming years from what is already a significant factor in worldwide emissions. And to be fair, why would China or India care about becoming greener when the United States, with all of their wealth and power, can expel 16.1 tons per capita per year without repercussions while China gets told of for their 8.0 tons? Let alone India, with their meager 1.9 tons per capita; why people from these countries be expected to give up on the quality of life and luxuries when the Americans get off scot free? The oil kingdoms won't be giving up their emissions any time soon, tiny, overpopulated islands won't either, but even large countries such as Australia, Canada and Estonia pump CO2 in the air at twice the rate of China. Saying "China won't do it so what's the point" is just pandering to the polluting masses to pretend they can't do a thing to change the world. Telling people that it's okay to let the tyre fire burn itself out because there's a much bigger tyre fire four streets down is still a terrible idea. People won't give up driving cars every day, they won't give up AC and they won't give up cheap plastic. The best we can do is probably what we're doing now, using "green" technologies to delay our inevitable demise by reducing the footprint. Green alternatives that are cheaper or as cheap as traditional items won't be available because oil is dirt cheap and easy to produce, the infrastructure is already there and everything from gas to processed food depends on oil products.