3 ms·

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 an

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.

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.