6 ms·

I agree with you, and to add to your remarks, I suspect if most first world countries implemented a sufficiently strict border adjustment ("carbon tariff") for

I agree with you, and to add to your remarks, I suspect if most first world countries implemented a sufficiently strict border adjustment ("carbon tariff") for trade with China, etc it would probably do quite a lot to motivate developed nations to improve as well. Anyway, I find the criticisms of the West to be both ignorant and tiring. Tiring because the "blame the West for everything" meme is so worn out and ignorant because there's a pretty stark difference between pioneering industrialization centuries before mature climate science and China's ratcheting up pollution knowing full-well the consequences.

triceratops 5y ago
> China's ratcheting up pollution knowing full-well the consequences That if they didn't their population would remain poor, and lacking access to healthcare, food, and water? And in an even worse situation when climate change finally hit? Are you suggesting that if China hadn't concentrated on development, the developed countries would be currently falling over themselves to fix the problem?
- samatman 5y ago
  China both leads the world in solar panel manufacture, and in new coal plants. That's a choice. No one is forcing their hand here. If it were the 90s I would have to agree with you, but, it isn't.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    You're suggesting they should go 100% solar for all new energy needs? I assume that they're taking an approach of using renewable energy where possible and fossil fuels when that's not enough.
    - AstralStorm 5y ago
      My recommendation which China is already seems to be taking is to go for nuclear power and solar in that order. Maybe add some hydropower to the mix but they have a plenty of it. The chief problem is that they're not ramping up nuclear quickly enough, and it's hard to deploy in desert west of the country. And thanks to our persistent self-sabotage there's civil unrest related to these power plants. The nuclear is to be used to ramp production of solar PV and batteries cleanly, then decommissioned. Timeframe would be 25 years. Decommissioning of current old reactors is a problem already but there's really no alternative - ramping solar PV with standard energy sources would be bad. A lot of reactors are expected to shut down by 2025...
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        They are ramping up nuclear but it's not exactly easy. See this expert's twitter thread on what hurdles they're facing: https://twitter.com/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961095892279296?s=19 https://twitter.com/pretentiouswhat/status/12939610958922792...
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The Chinese government starved and murdered 50+ million of its own citizenry. Spare me.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    I'm not disputing the CCP's past and present crimes. But I'm not sure what that has to do with climate change.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      You framed Chinese development as compassion for Chinese citizens. I pointed out that the Chinese government doesn't much care about the welfare of its citizens.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        I don't think I said "compassion" anywhere. But today they do obviously care about having an economically strong nation with a good standard of living. It's what will help keep them in power.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, I was paraphrasing, but the fact remains. > But today We're not talking about today, we're not just talking about the last ~50+ years. And moreover, even today they are pretty happy infringing on many other rights of their citizens.
colordrops 5y ago
We've known the consequences since at least the 70s. Industry has done everything they could to cover it up and propagandize the population into believing otherwise.
tzs 5y ago
The US emits about twice the CO2 per year as India, 3x Russia, 4x Japan, 6x Germany, 7x South Korea, 8x Canada, 10x Mexico, 12x Australia, 13x UK, 14x France, and 18x Taiwan. By your logic then shouldn't most first world countries also implement a strict carbon tariff on the US?
- carlmr 5y ago
  The carbon tariff should depend on the emission of the exporting nation, so yes
- dtwest 5y ago
  Maybe they should. But I can't help but comment that you're abusing statistics here. Smaller population countries like Canada and Australia pollute more per capita than the US. Also, the carbon tariff should ideally be applied on an activity-specific basis, not at the national level.
  - soperj 5y ago
    they included India in there. Which has 4 times the population.
    - bananabreakfast 5y ago
      India also has 32X smaller GDP per capita. Meaning they produce 16X more emissions per unit of productivity than America.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I don’t think this makes sense because American productivity depends so much on pollution outsourced to countries like India. For example, if US cars are assembled “greenly” from components that are manufactured dirtily, then it hardly seems meaningful to brag that America’s productivity is “greener”. And do bear in mind that I’m not one of the folks who are determined to make the US out to be the bad guy in every thread.
  - 5y ago
AnonHP 5y ago
A good amount of emissions from China go into the goods produced for western countries (such as the U.S.). The pollution has been outsourced and externalized.
- seneca 5y ago
  bko's comment upstream says otherwise, with situations. ~90% is consumption.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  That's exactly the point of a border adjustment. China out-competes with clean manufacturing because it is more willing to pollute. Western countries should tax goods that are manufactured in polluting countries so they don't enjoy a competitive advantage over clean alternatives. This is probably "necessary but insufficient" sort of thing, but it solves the problem you're highlighting.
  - haerra 5y ago
    But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed.
    - adventured 5y ago
      > But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed. China - as all nations - has a responsibility based on its population scale (ie its total emissions output), not just its per capita output. The total output matters far more than per capita, as we're dealing with a matter of planetary survival, not whether it's fair that Monaco has higher emissions output per capita than China. Other nations are not responsible for China having those 1.4 billion people. China bears that responsibility. Other nations are obviously not responsible for the US having its per capita emissions output, either. Estonia having 4x the per capita emissions output of the US wouldn't pose a terminal risk for the planet. And sure, maybe it's fair to argue a tax to incentivize per capita behavior of high per capita emissions nations. And what to do about China's total output risk, given it's going to destroy the planet (whereas smaller nations do not pose that risk)? The logical thing would be to apply taxes to both, in a way the keeps the planet from getting destroyed: it means China can never be allowed to have parity with smaller nations that have high per capita outputs. China, with its 1.4 billion people, would pose a terminal risk for the globe if it reaches per capita emissions output parity with the US (actually it's already approaching that risk now, and it's merely half way to parity). Taxes don't mean much if half the planet is wrecked. China has a different responsibility than Estonia does given China can all by itself destroy the world with its emissions. I use Estonia merely as an example to highlight the point, very obviously the US has a responsibility as well based on its scale. Sure, we can focus a tax in on Estonia in that case, however it's by far not our most pressing matter. China going from ~28% of global emissions to ~45%, is a very pressing matter. The globe can't afford China to increase at all at this point. If a country had four billion people, it similarly wouldn't be reasonable for it to reach emissions parity with the US: it would kill everyone in doing so. The equation of fairness must also consider the scale of the threat being posed, as it's also not fair if one outsized population nation gets to destroy the planet because it has 1.4 billion people. One can live in fantasy (where fairness means every nation gets equal emissions output per capita), or live in reality. In reality it matters how many people you have and what their per capita emissions are. Reality is course the dimension where we can all die from the emissions output of a nation the scale of China.

triceratops 5y ago

> China's ratcheting up pollution knowing full-well the consequences That if they didn't their population would remain poor, and lacking access to healthcare, food, and water? And in an even worse situation when climate change finally hit? Are you suggesting that if China hadn't concentrated on development, the developed countries would be currently falling over themselves to fix the problem?

samatman 5y ago
China both leads the world in solar panel manufacture, and in new coal plants. That's a choice. No one is forcing their hand here. If it were the 90s I would have to agree with you, but, it isn't.
- triceratops 5y ago
  You're suggesting they should go 100% solar for all new energy needs? I assume that they're taking an approach of using renewable energy where possible and fossil fuels when that's not enough.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    My recommendation which China is already seems to be taking is to go for nuclear power and solar in that order. Maybe add some hydropower to the mix but they have a plenty of it. The chief problem is that they're not ramping up nuclear quickly enough, and it's hard to deploy in desert west of the country. And thanks to our persistent self-sabotage there's civil unrest related to these power plants. The nuclear is to be used to ramp production of solar PV and batteries cleanly, then decommissioned. Timeframe would be 25 years. Decommissioning of current old reactors is a problem already but there's really no alternative - ramping solar PV with standard energy sources would be bad. A lot of reactors are expected to shut down by 2025...
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      They are ramping up nuclear but it's not exactly easy. See this expert's twitter thread on what hurdles they're facing: https://twitter.com/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961095892279296?s=19 https://twitter.com/pretentiouswhat/status/12939610958922792...
throwaway894345 5y ago
The Chinese government starved and murdered 50+ million of its own citizenry. Spare me.
- triceratops 5y ago
  I'm not disputing the CCP's past and present crimes. But I'm not sure what that has to do with climate change.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    You framed Chinese development as compassion for Chinese citizens. I pointed out that the Chinese government doesn't much care about the welfare of its citizens.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      I don't think I said "compassion" anywhere. But today they do obviously care about having an economically strong nation with a good standard of living. It's what will help keep them in power.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, I was paraphrasing, but the fact remains. > But today We're not talking about today, we're not just talking about the last ~50+ years. And moreover, even today they are pretty happy infringing on many other rights of their citizens.

colordrops 5y ago

We've known the consequences since at least the 70s. Industry has done everything they could to cover it up and propagandize the population into believing otherwise.

tzs 5y ago

The US emits about twice the CO2 per year as India, 3x Russia, 4x Japan, 6x Germany, 7x South Korea, 8x Canada, 10x Mexico, 12x Australia, 13x UK, 14x France, and 18x Taiwan. By your logic then shouldn't most first world countries also implement a strict carbon tariff on the US?

carlmr 5y ago
The carbon tariff should depend on the emission of the exporting nation, so yes
dtwest 5y ago
Maybe they should. But I can't help but comment that you're abusing statistics here. Smaller population countries like Canada and Australia pollute more per capita than the US. Also, the carbon tariff should ideally be applied on an activity-specific basis, not at the national level.
- soperj 5y ago
  they included India in there. Which has 4 times the population.
  - bananabreakfast 5y ago
    India also has 32X smaller GDP per capita. Meaning they produce 16X more emissions per unit of productivity than America.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I don’t think this makes sense because American productivity depends so much on pollution outsourced to countries like India. For example, if US cars are assembled “greenly” from components that are manufactured dirtily, then it hardly seems meaningful to brag that America’s productivity is “greener”. And do bear in mind that I’m not one of the folks who are determined to make the US out to be the bad guy in every thread.
- 5y ago

AnonHP 5y ago

A good amount of emissions from China go into the goods produced for western countries (such as the U.S.). The pollution has been outsourced and externalized.

seneca 5y ago
bko's comment upstream says otherwise, with situations. ~90% is consumption.
throwaway894345 5y ago
That's exactly the point of a border adjustment. China out-competes with clean manufacturing because it is more willing to pollute. Western countries should tax goods that are manufactured in polluting countries so they don't enjoy a competitive advantage over clean alternatives. This is probably "necessary but insufficient" sort of thing, but it solves the problem you're highlighting.
- haerra 5y ago
  But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed. China - as all nations - has a responsibility based on its population scale (ie its total emissions output), not just its per capita output. The total output matters far more than per capita, as we're dealing with a matter of planetary survival, not whether it's fair that Monaco has higher emissions output per capita than China. Other nations are not responsible for China having those 1.4 billion people. China bears that responsibility. Other nations are obviously not responsible for the US having its per capita emissions output, either. Estonia having 4x the per capita emissions output of the US wouldn't pose a terminal risk for the planet. And sure, maybe it's fair to argue a tax to incentivize per capita behavior of high per capita emissions nations. And what to do about China's total output risk, given it's going to destroy the planet (whereas smaller nations do not pose that risk)? The logical thing would be to apply taxes to both, in a way the keeps the planet from getting destroyed: it means China can never be allowed to have parity with smaller nations that have high per capita outputs. China, with its 1.4 billion people, would pose a terminal risk for the globe if it reaches per capita emissions output parity with the US (actually it's already approaching that risk now, and it's merely half way to parity). Taxes don't mean much if half the planet is wrecked. China has a different responsibility than Estonia does given China can all by itself destroy the world with its emissions. I use Estonia merely as an example to highlight the point, very obviously the US has a responsibility as well based on its scale. Sure, we can focus a tax in on Estonia in that case, however it's by far not our most pressing matter. China going from ~28% of global emissions to ~45%, is a very pressing matter. The globe can't afford China to increase at all at this point. If a country had four billion people, it similarly wouldn't be reasonable for it to reach emissions parity with the US: it would kill everyone in doing so. The equation of fairness must also consider the scale of the threat being posed, as it's also not fair if one outsized population nation gets to destroy the planet because it has 1.4 billion people. One can live in fantasy (where fairness means every nation gets equal emissions output per capita), or live in reality. In reality it matters how many people you have and what their per capita emissions are. Reality is course the dimension where we can all die from the emissions output of a nation the scale of China.