11 ms·

> Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Most people on earth still live in condition

> Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most. That is why this argument falls flat. We didn't buy this kind of living standard with some future self-inflicted suffering: your amenities of modern life are bought with the suffering of others. But the deal is done and over. Now a debt is owed.

incrudible 5y ago
I get that, but what are the implications? Consider that the vast majority of CO2 emissions today are coming from the countries that are still developing to that standard we enjoy. We have no right to ask them to cut down. Therefore, we have no choice but to invest into sequestration, because that's the only way to pay down that "debt".
- to11mtm 5y ago
  As an alternative, would it be worth it to help developing countries build green solutions now, maybe the economies of scale will help offset some of the short-term cost? You're right that it's not right to force still developing countries to halt their progress. I just wonder if there's a way to help them develop in a way that is better long-term.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Absolutely, technology that scales out to the rest of the world is the only hope to actually make a substantial difference. That includes sequestration, renewables, but also nuclear fission and (hopefully) fusion. Unfortunately, most of the activism seems to revolve around "us sinners" needing to abstain from our indulgences.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most." They still benefit from industrial development, even though with a certain time lag compared to us (because that is it: time lag. Living standards in poorer countries lag behind those of Europe or Japan, but they rise nonetheless.) For example, about 90 per cent of humanity has electricity and uses some electrical appliances. Few people live in truly pre-industrial conditions.

incrudible 5y ago

I get that, but what are the implications? Consider that the vast majority of CO2 emissions today are coming from the countries that are still developing to that standard we enjoy. We have no right to ask them to cut down. Therefore, we have no choice but to invest into sequestration, because that's the only way to pay down that "debt".

to11mtm 5y ago
As an alternative, would it be worth it to help developing countries build green solutions now, maybe the economies of scale will help offset some of the short-term cost? You're right that it's not right to force still developing countries to halt their progress. I just wonder if there's a way to help them develop in a way that is better long-term.
- incrudible 5y ago
  Absolutely, technology that scales out to the rest of the world is the only hope to actually make a substantial difference. That includes sequestration, renewables, but also nuclear fission and (hopefully) fusion. Unfortunately, most of the activism seems to revolve around "us sinners" needing to abstain from our indulgences.

inglor_cz 5y ago

"Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most." They still benefit from industrial development, even though with a certain time lag compared to us (because that is it: time lag. Living standards in poorer countries lag behind those of Europe or Japan, but they rise nonetheless.) For example, about 90 per cent of humanity has electricity and uses some electrical appliances. Few people live in truly pre-industrial conditions.