3 ms·

I think you have some issues with reading comprehension: I specifically blame the US in this case, for simply moving all these emissions to China instead of dea

by m0zg 5y ago

I think you have some issues with reading comprehension: I specifically blame the US in this case, for simply moving all these emissions to China instead of dealing with them for real and right here. We share the planet. Simply moving this crap around doesn't fix anything, and never did, if anything it exacerbates the atmospheric effects. Also, China is not a "poor country" anymore. It's time it started setting money aside for "investment in poor countries", too, rather than build hundreds more coal power plants in the next five years.

simion314 5y ago
Are you sure your text "US is only number 3" is not open to interpretation? Anyway I seen tons of similar bad arguments, that ignore the population , put China on number 1 and then say "let's do nothing until China cleans shit up and then until India cleans shit up and maybe after that we can find some other pretext not to do anything", same for plastics . What each country could do is fix their local shit, as I said even if you have 1 coal plant, that smoke affects your local people and not someone on the other side of the world, fixing your local coal burning should still happen even if you are greenest of the green. Then if everyone would be logic and not blame the neighbors you get your clean air and less CO2.
- m0zg 5y ago
  To China's credit, they've just announced a ton of nuclear investment as well, something the United States no longer has the balls to do. This is (currently) _the only_ real solution to CO2 emissions that we have as a species, short of throwing billions of people back into poverty. The US prefers to pretend that solar is "it". But it's not, and it's never going to be, although its share will grow, of course. All I'm saying is I don't think the world leaders perceive this as a problem at all. They perceive it as a money making opportunity, for themselves and their donors (maybe with the exception of Xi Jinping who doesn't need the money since he's not replaceable, and he can just take whatever he wants). Otherwise they wouldn't have flown to Glasgow in _four hundred_ private jets and wouldn't have driven around around in hundred car armored motorcades. A videoconference would more than suffice for what they "accomplished" there. President of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen once took a plane to travel 31 miles [1]. That is not the behavior of a person who believes climate change to be a "problem". [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-air-miles-ursula-used-private-jet-travel-just-31-miles/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > But it's not, and it's never going to be, although its share will grow, of course. Unless we make fusion (or spacemagic which beats it), the future can’t be anything else. I’m expecting the world of 2121 to be 95% PV on an antipodal power grid. (It would take a while to build at that scale, but the sun never sets on such a grid).
    - m0zg 5y ago
      Regardless of the progress on fusion and whatnot, China's move will force the US re-enter nuclear in the short term, if it decides to offer more than just platitudes to "climate crisis" goals. It's the only clean, abundant energy source supported by the sane and rational subset of both of the main parties.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Good luck to them. I get the impression new fission plants are almost as politically toxic as the critics mistakenly think they are literally toxic.
        m0zg 5y ago
        Nothing a little mainstream media brainwashing couldn't fix.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> Also, China is not a "poor country" anymore. It's time it started setting money aside for "investment in poor countries", too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative (although that also includes some coal plants) > rather than build hundreds more coal power plants in the next five years China's coal plants are a combination of two factors: - Inertia/entrenched interests (i.e. it makes powerful people more wealthy). This is certainly a problem, but it's a hard problem to solve when even Xi Jinping's authority isn't enough to prevent it. - The immense scale of everything China's doing. For example, they're also building more nuclear plants than anyone else https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country they also have the most photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics etc.

by m0zg 5y ago

simion314 5y ago

Are you sure your text "US is only number 3" is not open to interpretation? Anyway I seen tons of similar bad arguments, that ignore the population , put China on number 1 and then say "let's do nothing until China cleans shit up and then until India cleans shit up and maybe after that we can find some other pretext not to do anything", same for plastics . What each country could do is fix their local shit, as I said even if you have 1 coal plant, that smoke affects your local people and not someone on the other side of the world, fixing your local coal burning should still happen even if you are greenest of the green. Then if everyone would be logic and not blame the neighbors you get your clean air and less CO2.

m0zg 5y ago
To China's credit, they've just announced a ton of nuclear investment as well, something the United States no longer has the balls to do. This is (currently) _the only_ real solution to CO2 emissions that we have as a species, short of throwing billions of people back into poverty. The US prefers to pretend that solar is "it". But it's not, and it's never going to be, although its share will grow, of course. All I'm saying is I don't think the world leaders perceive this as a problem at all. They perceive it as a money making opportunity, for themselves and their donors (maybe with the exception of Xi Jinping who doesn't need the money since he's not replaceable, and he can just take whatever he wants). Otherwise they wouldn't have flown to Glasgow in _four hundred_ private jets and wouldn't have driven around around in hundred car armored motorcades. A videoconference would more than suffice for what they "accomplished" there. President of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen once took a plane to travel 31 miles [1]. That is not the behavior of a person who believes climate change to be a "problem". [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-air-miles-ursula-used-private-jet-travel-just-31-miles/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...
- ben_w 5y ago
  > But it's not, and it's never going to be, although its share will grow, of course. Unless we make fusion (or spacemagic which beats it), the future can’t be anything else. I’m expecting the world of 2121 to be 95% PV on an antipodal power grid. (It would take a while to build at that scale, but the sun never sets on such a grid).
  - m0zg 5y ago
    Regardless of the progress on fusion and whatnot, China's move will force the US re-enter nuclear in the short term, if it decides to offer more than just platitudes to "climate crisis" goals. It's the only clean, abundant energy source supported by the sane and rational subset of both of the main parties.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Good luck to them. I get the impression new fission plants are almost as politically toxic as the critics mistakenly think they are literally toxic.
      - m0zg 5y ago
        Nothing a little mainstream media brainwashing couldn't fix.

chriswarbo 5y ago

> Also, China is not a "poor country" anymore. It's time it started setting money aside for "investment in poor countries", too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative (although that also includes some coal plants) > rather than build hundreds more coal power plants in the next five years China's coal plants are a combination of two factors: - Inertia/entrenched interests (i.e. it makes powerful people more wealthy). This is certainly a problem, but it's a hard problem to solve when even Xi Jinping's authority isn't enough to prevent it. - The immense scale of everything China's doing. For example, they're also building more nuclear plants than anyone else https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country they also have the most photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics etc.