5 ms·

I feel like you’re arguing a straw man; is anyone actually saying or thinking that the US is the sole cause of climate change? Everyone I talk to about climate

by cmckn 5y ago

I feel like you’re arguing a straw man; is anyone actually saying or thinking that the US is the sole cause of climate change? Everyone I talk to about climate is under the impression that China is the big bad wolf (although that’s overly-simplified and not true either). The US is influential, for better or worse; I think many people rightfully expect the US to be a leader on climate policy. On your point, keep in mind that American consumption causes a tremendous amount of off-shore emissions. We have artificially “low” emissions because we outsource them to regions like Southeast Asia.

godelski 5y ago
> The US is influential, for better or worse; I think many people rightfully expect the US to be a leader on climate policy. This is the root of my problem. Yeah, the US _should_ be the leader on climate policy. But we've been failing for the last 20 years. At what point are we going to acknowledge that someone else needs to pick up the mantel. And as you've mentioned, it isn't like China is going to do it (you can shift my comment to China + US and the sentiment will hold true, but maybe I conveyed my thoughts poorly. Communication is difficult, especially over heated topics).
- cmckn 5y ago
  I totally agree that China isn’t going to step up on climate. I don’t think there is another power able to drive international consensus like the US on this issue. Whether that’s a blessing or a curse is mostly a matter of perspective :) I genuinely believe that we can change course on climate policy, but it won’t happen in one or two national elections. Electing people who care about sustainability at every level of government is necessary for big changes to happen federally and internationally. We’ve got a lot of work to do!
- philwelch 5y ago
  > Yeah, the US _should_ be the leader on climate policy. But we've been failing for the last 20 years. At what point are we going to acknowledge that someone else needs to pick up the mantel. If nobody has, then everyone has been failing, not just us. So the US might as well do the right thing "after we've tried everything else", as Churchill didn't actually say.
reissbaker 5y ago
Yes, the OP did literally argue that if the US had transitioned to nuclear power, global climate change would have been "minor."
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  The US has been responsible for a large plurality of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. China is now the largest emitter, but it's not particularly close if you integrate that function over time.
  - reissbaker 5y ago
    Looking at the data, it doesn't seem like the US transitioning to nuclear would have made climate change a "minor" problem: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... For nearly all of the time before China outstripped the US, the EU (if you include EU-27) was a larger contributor than the US anyway. And much of the early US emissions edge came before nuclear power was invented. Global warming itself was poorly understood prior to the 1960s: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-glob... A transition to nuclear would have helped, certainly! But climate change would not be "minor."
- godelski 5y ago
  People seem to be missing that this was my entire point... The OP made too strong of a statement.

by cmckn 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

> The US is influential, for better or worse; I think many people rightfully expect the US to be a leader on climate policy. This is the root of my problem. Yeah, the US _should_ be the leader on climate policy. But we've been failing for the last 20 years. At what point are we going to acknowledge that someone else needs to pick up the mantel. And as you've mentioned, it isn't like China is going to do it (you can shift my comment to China + US and the sentiment will hold true, but maybe I conveyed my thoughts poorly. Communication is difficult, especially over heated topics).

cmckn 5y ago
I totally agree that China isn’t going to step up on climate. I don’t think there is another power able to drive international consensus like the US on this issue. Whether that’s a blessing or a curse is mostly a matter of perspective :) I genuinely believe that we can change course on climate policy, but it won’t happen in one or two national elections. Electing people who care about sustainability at every level of government is necessary for big changes to happen federally and internationally. We’ve got a lot of work to do!
philwelch 5y ago
> Yeah, the US _should_ be the leader on climate policy. But we've been failing for the last 20 years. At what point are we going to acknowledge that someone else needs to pick up the mantel. If nobody has, then everyone has been failing, not just us. So the US might as well do the right thing "after we've tried everything else", as Churchill didn't actually say.

reissbaker 5y ago

Yes, the OP did literally argue that if the US had transitioned to nuclear power, global climate change would have been "minor."

whimsicalism 5y ago
The US has been responsible for a large plurality of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. China is now the largest emitter, but it's not particularly close if you integrate that function over time.
- reissbaker 5y ago
  Looking at the data, it doesn't seem like the US transitioning to nuclear would have made climate change a "minor" problem: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... For nearly all of the time before China outstripped the US, the EU (if you include EU-27) was a larger contributor than the US anyway. And much of the early US emissions edge came before nuclear power was invented. Global warming itself was poorly understood prior to the 1960s: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-glob... A transition to nuclear would have helped, certainly! But climate change would not be "minor."
godelski 5y ago
People seem to be missing that this was my entire point... The OP made too strong of a statement.