3 ms·

Nobody's pretending the US is the sole contributor to climate change. China's emissions exceed those of all other developed countries combined[0]. And, when y

Nobody's pretending the US is the sole contributor to climate change. China's emissions exceed those of all other developed countries combined[0]. And, when you look at the top 20 companies in terms of carbon emissions, it turns out that 12 of them are state owned (thus, non-US companies), and, unsurprisingly, all of them are energy companies[1]. OTOH, the US is not at all blameless here. If the US military were its own country, it would rank 55th in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions, beating out 140 other countries[2]. --- [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed... [2]: https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269 https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter...

godelski 5y ago
Honestly? A lot of people are. Don't get me wrong, the US is a big part of the problem. I'm not trying to state otherwise. As a single country we are the second worse, and the worst on a per capita scale. To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the US is not a major contributor. We definitely are and should be leading the way to solve this problem. The issue is that we aren't leading the way, despite the best efforts of many of its citizens. But I also don't see anyone else stepping up. I also don't see people considering that the rest of the globe that isn't electrified is making the choice of "clean energy or a hospital." We know what they'll go with every time and we shouldn't blame them. This is the most complicated problem that humankind has ever faced. We are doing a disservice by over simplifying the problem. We are doing a disservice by turning this into a political "shoulda-coulda" or "but they waste more" game. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, emissions still happen even if one person is more at fault. The worst part? The countries that emit the most will also be able to deal with the crisis more easily, and thus have less incentive to actually solve it. I'm not saying the US isn't to blame. I'm saying the problem is far more complicated than the US and it's going to take more than them to solve it.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  You're absolutely right. However, I'd argue that per capita emissions is a misleading metric here, in light of the fact that when you drill down even deeper and look at the top 100 corporate polluters, which are collectively responsible for 71% of our greenhouse gas emissions[0], virtually all of them [1] are energy companies. Now, yes, individual people consume energy, thus forming most of the basis for this "per capita emissions" metric, but, in the alternative timeline where the world got serious about clean energy 20-30 years ago, guess what happens to that metric? It drops in direct correlation with the amount of investment in clean energy. But, as to the rest of what you write here, the solution, at least in my mind, seems fairly simple, if not easy: developed countries must invest massively and immediately in clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as properly pricing carbon emissions via carbon taxes so that that negative externality is included in every single consumer decision. Further, developed countries must engage in clean energy technology sharing and development projects throughout the world[2]. We need the entire world to be on the same page, and, China, the US, and Europe need to be leading the way. So, yes, absolutely, the problem scope vastly exceeds the US (it's global), so, therefore, the solution must be global as well. --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... [1]: Perhaps literally all of them. I had to scroll down to about number 75 before I saw one that might not be an energy company, just from the name. [2]: This solves the "clean energy or a hospital" problem.
  - godelski 5y ago
    > But, as to the rest of what you write here, the solution, at least in my mind, seems fairly simple, if not easy: developed countries must invest massively and immediately in clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies This is something I actively fight for. I often state that the US (and west) don't need to be carbon neutral by 2050, but carbon negative now. That's how we unburden the developing world. That's how we pay back for the damage cause mostly by us. But CCS is still a complicated subject and highly debated within the green communities (just like nuclear is). People think we can get away with just planting trees, but the research and experts don't think that's true (especially since new growth forests are carbon sources (fact that surprises many people) instead of carbon sinks (old growth forests are major sinks btw)). We're going to need a wide breadth of methods to solve this and we shouldn't be taking any off the table as long as the result is that we're carbon negative[0]. [0] The arguments against CCS tend to be that if we have them then the coal and ng companies can still operate. Though this obviously misses the point since we care about the resultant emissions more than the source.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> If the US military were its own country, it would rank 55th in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions, beating out 140 other countries It's a valid point about the military, but all militaries run on fossil fuels and a handful of big carriers/subs that runs on nuclear. During WW2, we ran petrol/oil pipelines from the UK under water to Normandy. Each pipeline was a steel cable rolled up along an enormous floating drum called a conundrum that weighed as much as a destroyer. There were 7 of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto Then we extended those pipelines on land as we pushed East. There were 73 allied divisions, each requiring an average of 7 tons of supply each day, with 2/3 of that being fuel. The USSR had something like 600 divisions. Modern armies need even more oil as jets are thirsty. Oil and gas infrastructure is critical to modern warfare at the moment, and I don't really see electric tanks or jets on the horizon. So that's not going to be an area where will be reducing much CO2 any time soon. Long term, perhaps hydrogen might be a replacement for vehicles, and smaller nuclear reactors even for combat ships?? But we'd need to be able to make a lot of hydrogen very quickly, and have something like a strategic hydrogen reserve for wartime. The explosive nature of hydrogen is also a challenge when you are being bombed and shot at, and there are supply chain issues as to what operation Pluto would look like if it was hydrogen.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  If the world was run on Uranium and Thorium which are universally distributed in the earth's crust and in the ocean people would have a lot less to fight about.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    TIL WW2 was fought for oil. I guess Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan were about oil, too? I'll grant that Iraq was about oil. More likely, if the world was run on Uranium and Thorium then people wouldn't be able to blame wars on oil.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    There'll always be land.
- 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

Honestly? A lot of people are. Don't get me wrong, the US is a big part of the problem. I'm not trying to state otherwise. As a single country we are the second worse, and the worst on a per capita scale. To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the US is not a major contributor. We definitely are and should be leading the way to solve this problem. The issue is that we aren't leading the way, despite the best efforts of many of its citizens. But I also don't see anyone else stepping up. I also don't see people considering that the rest of the globe that isn't electrified is making the choice of "clean energy or a hospital." We know what they'll go with every time and we shouldn't blame them. This is the most complicated problem that humankind has ever faced. We are doing a disservice by over simplifying the problem. We are doing a disservice by turning this into a political "shoulda-coulda" or "but they waste more" game. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, emissions still happen even if one person is more at fault. The worst part? The countries that emit the most will also be able to deal with the crisis more easily, and thus have less incentive to actually solve it. I'm not saying the US isn't to blame. I'm saying the problem is far more complicated than the US and it's going to take more than them to solve it.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
You're absolutely right. However, I'd argue that per capita emissions is a misleading metric here, in light of the fact that when you drill down even deeper and look at the top 100 corporate polluters, which are collectively responsible for 71% of our greenhouse gas emissions[0], virtually all of them [1] are energy companies. Now, yes, individual people consume energy, thus forming most of the basis for this "per capita emissions" metric, but, in the alternative timeline where the world got serious about clean energy 20-30 years ago, guess what happens to that metric? It drops in direct correlation with the amount of investment in clean energy. But, as to the rest of what you write here, the solution, at least in my mind, seems fairly simple, if not easy: developed countries must invest massively and immediately in clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as properly pricing carbon emissions via carbon taxes so that that negative externality is included in every single consumer decision. Further, developed countries must engage in clean energy technology sharing and development projects throughout the world[2]. We need the entire world to be on the same page, and, China, the US, and Europe need to be leading the way. So, yes, absolutely, the problem scope vastly exceeds the US (it's global), so, therefore, the solution must be global as well. --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... [1]: Perhaps literally all of them. I had to scroll down to about number 75 before I saw one that might not be an energy company, just from the name. [2]: This solves the "clean energy or a hospital" problem.
- godelski 5y ago
  > But, as to the rest of what you write here, the solution, at least in my mind, seems fairly simple, if not easy: developed countries must invest massively and immediately in clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies This is something I actively fight for. I often state that the US (and west) don't need to be carbon neutral by 2050, but carbon negative now. That's how we unburden the developing world. That's how we pay back for the damage cause mostly by us. But CCS is still a complicated subject and highly debated within the green communities (just like nuclear is). People think we can get away with just planting trees, but the research and experts don't think that's true (especially since new growth forests are carbon sources (fact that surprises many people) instead of carbon sinks (old growth forests are major sinks btw)). We're going to need a wide breadth of methods to solve this and we shouldn't be taking any off the table as long as the result is that we're carbon negative[0]. [0] The arguments against CCS tend to be that if we have them then the coal and ng companies can still operate. Though this obviously misses the point since we care about the resultant emissions more than the source.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> If the US military were its own country, it would rank 55th in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions, beating out 140 other countries It's a valid point about the military, but all militaries run on fossil fuels and a handful of big carriers/subs that runs on nuclear. During WW2, we ran petrol/oil pipelines from the UK under water to Normandy. Each pipeline was a steel cable rolled up along an enormous floating drum called a conundrum that weighed as much as a destroyer. There were 7 of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto Then we extended those pipelines on land as we pushed East. There were 73 allied divisions, each requiring an average of 7 tons of supply each day, with 2/3 of that being fuel. The USSR had something like 600 divisions. Modern armies need even more oil as jets are thirsty. Oil and gas infrastructure is critical to modern warfare at the moment, and I don't really see electric tanks or jets on the horizon. So that's not going to be an area where will be reducing much CO2 any time soon. Long term, perhaps hydrogen might be a replacement for vehicles, and smaller nuclear reactors even for combat ships?? But we'd need to be able to make a lot of hydrogen very quickly, and have something like a strategic hydrogen reserve for wartime. The explosive nature of hydrogen is also a challenge when you are being bombed and shot at, and there are supply chain issues as to what operation Pluto would look like if it was hydrogen.

PaulHoule 5y ago
If the world was run on Uranium and Thorium which are universally distributed in the earth's crust and in the ocean people would have a lot less to fight about.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  TIL WW2 was fought for oil. I guess Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan were about oil, too? I'll grant that Iraq was about oil. More likely, if the world was run on Uranium and Thorium then people wouldn't be able to blame wars on oil.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  There'll always be land.
5y ago