6 ms·

> Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small Every nation is saying this, including US pointing to China. China is the

by dtech 5y ago

> Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small Every nation is saying this, including US pointing to China. China is then saying they use less per capita and started producing CO2 decades after western nations. Congratulations, we're not doing anything collectively. I'm sure that'll excuse us to the inhabitants of earth in 50-100 years.

adventured 5y ago
It doesn't matter what China says, what rationalizations are used. What matters is the total emissions output and the direction. China's emissions are skyrocketing, while already being drastically greater than the US or EU. While the US and EU emissions have been declining gradually. If you have 1.4 billion people, you don't get to have the same (high) per capita emissions output as a nation 1/4 your population size. The world didn't force China to have 1.4b people, it's their responsibility. The fair target isn't parity per capita with the US, it's China being allowed to have no more than 1/4 the per capita emissions of the US. And that's still a terrible number, the US is the drop dead line for where we don't want other large countries going beyond. The problem is China is already double that and heading a lot higher yet. We don't have to urgently care if Estonia were to have the highest per capita output of emissions, they can't destroy the planet with their emissions no matter what they do. China can due to their population. It would be a different context if China's emissions were declining. With regards to China's CO2 emissions for example, how much more dire can it get? https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg
- soperj 5y ago
  US is the richest nation on earth and is more responsible for the current problem than any other nation on earth. They have the means to reduce their emissions drastically but choose not to.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    The US should absolutely do more to reduce its emissions, but the actions or inaction of one country doesn't impugn or absolve others. Otherwise any country can and will point to some other country and use some contrived rationale like yours to justify inaction. At the end of the day, we need all countries to meet their emissions targets, otherwise we'll just be pointing fingers at each other while society crumbles around us.
    - soperj 5y ago
      US is one of the main countries trying to justify inaction. They've still cumulatively contributed nearly double the amount of Co2 to the atmosphere as China.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        This is silly. The US isn't trying to justify inaction, and cumulative contributions isn't useful for anything. Of course the United States' total emissions are higher--it industrialized nearly a century before China, long before climate science existed or before technology existed anywhere to reduce emissions. The relevant metric is the rate of change of emission--are we putting more or less carbon into the atmosphere year over year, and by how much? China is continuing to increase its emissions year over year, while the US emissions are falling (though not quickly enough). Another interesting metric is the consumptive emissions--how much emissions are generated from trade (e.g., when an American buys something produced in China, the carbon involved in manufacturing that item is emitted in China, but the American benefits from the pollution as well). I actually expected the US to have much higher consumptive emissions relative to China, but it looks like the consumptive emissions pretty closely track the productive emissions while being just a bit higher at 5.77 billion t/yr (falling gradually since 2005), while China's are at 9.86 billion t/yr and climbing. On the note of consumptive emissions, the United States should not only implement its own carbon pricing scheme, but it (along with other rich countries) should also implement a border adjustment so countries like China don't enjoy unfair competitive advantages because they pollute. This would incentivize China to reduce its Co2 or suffer heavy economic losses. It would also increase manufacturing in countries that are more responsible. That said, to your point, the Democratic Party pays lip service to environmental concerns (the current $3.5 T budget bill is making expensive token gestures to the environment which will cost polluters virtually nothing) and the Republican Party isn't even doing that. So yes, America has a lot of room for improvement (but at least America isn't arguing that we should be allowed to increase our emissions, contrary to Chinese arguments).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by dtech 5y ago

adventured 5y ago

It doesn't matter what China says, what rationalizations are used. What matters is the total emissions output and the direction. China's emissions are skyrocketing, while already being drastically greater than the US or EU. While the US and EU emissions have been declining gradually. If you have 1.4 billion people, you don't get to have the same (high) per capita emissions output as a nation 1/4 your population size. The world didn't force China to have 1.4b people, it's their responsibility. The fair target isn't parity per capita with the US, it's China being allowed to have no more than 1/4 the per capita emissions of the US. And that's still a terrible number, the US is the drop dead line for where we don't want other large countries going beyond. The problem is China is already double that and heading a lot higher yet. We don't have to urgently care if Estonia were to have the highest per capita output of emissions, they can't destroy the planet with their emissions no matter what they do. China can due to their population. It would be a different context if China's emissions were declining. With regards to China's CO2 emissions for example, how much more dire can it get? https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg

soperj 5y ago
US is the richest nation on earth and is more responsible for the current problem than any other nation on earth. They have the means to reduce their emissions drastically but choose not to.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The US should absolutely do more to reduce its emissions, but the actions or inaction of one country doesn't impugn or absolve others. Otherwise any country can and will point to some other country and use some contrived rationale like yours to justify inaction. At the end of the day, we need all countries to meet their emissions targets, otherwise we'll just be pointing fingers at each other while society crumbles around us.
  - soperj 5y ago
    US is one of the main countries trying to justify inaction. They've still cumulatively contributed nearly double the amount of Co2 to the atmosphere as China.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      This is silly. The US isn't trying to justify inaction, and cumulative contributions isn't useful for anything. Of course the United States' total emissions are higher--it industrialized nearly a century before China, long before climate science existed or before technology existed anywhere to reduce emissions. The relevant metric is the rate of change of emission--are we putting more or less carbon into the atmosphere year over year, and by how much? China is continuing to increase its emissions year over year, while the US emissions are falling (though not quickly enough). Another interesting metric is the consumptive emissions--how much emissions are generated from trade (e.g., when an American buys something produced in China, the carbon involved in manufacturing that item is emitted in China, but the American benefits from the pollution as well). I actually expected the US to have much higher consumptive emissions relative to China, but it looks like the consumptive emissions pretty closely track the productive emissions while being just a bit higher at 5.77 billion t/yr (falling gradually since 2005), while China's are at 9.86 billion t/yr and climbing. On the note of consumptive emissions, the United States should not only implement its own carbon pricing scheme, but it (along with other rich countries) should also implement a border adjustment so countries like China don't enjoy unfair competitive advantages because they pollute. This would incentivize China to reduce its Co2 or suffer heavy economic losses. It would also increase manufacturing in countries that are more responsible. That said, to your point, the Democratic Party pays lip service to environmental concerns (the current $3.5 T budget bill is making expensive token gestures to the environment which will cost polluters virtually nothing) and the Republican Party isn't even doing that. So yes, America has a lot of room for improvement (but at least America isn't arguing that we should be allowed to increase our emissions, contrary to Chinese arguments).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]