4 ms·

>This is the problem I have with people who claim to care about the catastrophic impact of climate change. It's more about claiming moral victory over western c

>This is the problem I have with people who claim to care about the catastrophic impact of climate change. It's more about claiming moral victory over western countries than it is about actually working to reduce the CO2 in the environment. If someone was about to destroy the world, wouldn't your main focus be one preventing that to happen? Here is a better idea. How about developed nations, with their might of research, resources and human capital, put aside economic growth for a while and steer the world towards a sustainable future. Its not about moral victories. The approach of developed nations has been wrong. You see people like Trump and lose all hope for humanity. There is only so much a developing country can do when you have scenarios where India has 4 times the population of USA, yet per capita Carbon production is 7 times less. Still, it is the developing nations who have been most successful in meeting climate targets, be it in renewable energy or reduction in per capita carbon generation. Sure, I like to whine and point out the moral failures of the developed world, but it is rightly deserved so. Because developing countries also act on climate change, in spite of knowing the effects it has on their economies. But god forbid angering an American voter by talking about being responsible for climate change.

ctdonath 5y ago
As GP wrote: "western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms".
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  They've done so (at least partially) by moving the bulk of their industrial production into the 'developing' world.
  - lkbm 5y ago
    The US has dropped per-capita emissions even when you include the emissions from offshored production: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
    - soperj 5y ago
      To levels that are still much higher than India.
- triceratops 5y ago
  This didn't happen purely because Western countries became more aware of their impact on the environment. As countries develop, their population growth rate slows. Their technology improves and they can spend energy more efficiently. In the US's case, there was a large gain from switching from coal to natural gas for power generation. Not because it was better environmentally, but because it was cheaper. It's disingenuous for the US to go "Look at all we've done" when half the country is in firm denial that there's even a problem.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Interesting how recognizing success in lowering carbon emissions gets downvoted. I'd like to know why.
flyinglizard 5y ago
The data shows that Western world growth reduces CO2 on both per capita and absolute levels. As things renew and develop they are cleaner and more efficient. I’m not sure why you’d want to stop that, unless you care more about moral victories than climate change itself.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  In fact it's just plain wrong to divide the world this way between 'developed' and 'developing'. There is no inherent progress towards 'development' and no natural staging of these things towards lower CO2 emissions or advancement generally. The reality is that the world economy is combined and uneven. Environmental laws and protections put in place in western countries are one of the many things that leads to the wholesale export of industries into places where regulations are laxer or unenforced. The dirty work is sent elsewhere. Considered as a whole, there is no "third wave" economy, and mass industrialism has never left us. The world's industrial working class is larger than it has ever been. Industrial production is bigger than it's ever been. Industrial pollution is larger than it has ever been, by far. And all of this is tied into a world economy facilitated by global trade. This should be entirely obvious to people who work in a tech sector where almost all hardware is produced in China. So it is nonsense to try to divide responsibilities between "developed" and the "developing" world. The whole world continues to be "developing." And the distribution of wealth itself isn't close to even either, there are areas within the "developed" world that look very similar to the "undeveloped" or "developing" world in terms of living standards.

ctdonath 5y ago

As GP wrote: "western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms".

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
They've done so (at least partially) by moving the bulk of their industrial production into the 'developing' world.
- lkbm 5y ago
  The US has dropped per-capita emissions even when you include the emissions from offshored production: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
  - soperj 5y ago
    To levels that are still much higher than India.
triceratops 5y ago
This didn't happen purely because Western countries became more aware of their impact on the environment. As countries develop, their population growth rate slows. Their technology improves and they can spend energy more efficiently. In the US's case, there was a large gain from switching from coal to natural gas for power generation. Not because it was better environmentally, but because it was cheaper. It's disingenuous for the US to go "Look at all we've done" when half the country is in firm denial that there's even a problem.
ctdonath 5y ago
Interesting how recognizing success in lowering carbon emissions gets downvoted. I'd like to know why.

flyinglizard 5y ago

The data shows that Western world growth reduces CO2 on both per capita and absolute levels. As things renew and develop they are cleaner and more efficient. I’m not sure why you’d want to stop that, unless you care more about moral victories than climate change itself.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
In fact it's just plain wrong to divide the world this way between 'developed' and 'developing'. There is no inherent progress towards 'development' and no natural staging of these things towards lower CO2 emissions or advancement generally. The reality is that the world economy is combined and uneven. Environmental laws and protections put in place in western countries are one of the many things that leads to the wholesale export of industries into places where regulations are laxer or unenforced. The dirty work is sent elsewhere. Considered as a whole, there is no "third wave" economy, and mass industrialism has never left us. The world's industrial working class is larger than it has ever been. Industrial production is bigger than it's ever been. Industrial pollution is larger than it has ever been, by far. And all of this is tied into a world economy facilitated by global trade. This should be entirely obvious to people who work in a tech sector where almost all hardware is produced in China. So it is nonsense to try to divide responsibilities between "developed" and the "developing" world. The whole world continues to be "developing." And the distribution of wealth itself isn't close to even either, there are areas within the "developed" world that look very similar to the "undeveloped" or "developing" world in terms of living standards.