4 ms·
I think it's unfair that countries with relatively little cumulative emissions historically (India, China) are made to comply with the same restrictions as coun
by adtac 5y ago
I think it's unfair that countries with relatively little cumulative emissions historically (India, China) are made to comply with the same restrictions as countries that have already built a lot of infrastructure with emissions over the past 150 years (e.g. Europe and North America). I know nature doesn't give a fuck about borders and what's fair, and that everyone on this planet is fighting against the same threat, so I don't know what the solution is. I just know this is a problem.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- makotech222 5y agoChina is the only country building nuclear plants in any significant way right now. All western countries have abandoned them, and are only building natgas/coal/oil
- rp1 5y agoUsing the energy to build infrastructure is just the finders fee. Doesn’t make sense to keep doing something known to be unsustainable. That’s a tragedy of the commons
- adtac 5y agoI don't disagree, but I just wish there was a solution that's both fair and, you know, won't cause mass extinction. Maybe that's just not possible.
- rp1 5y agoI guess my point was that a "finders fee" is fair. If you push the boundary of human progress, you're allowed to exploit your discovery a bit.
- rocknor 5y agoFor people wondering what the numbers on cumulative emissions look like: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=gbr&=ind&=can&=rus&=jpn;;;;;;&encoding$y$data$concept=cumulative_co2_emissions_tonnes&space@=country&=time;;&scale$type=linear&domain:null&zoomed:null;;&frame$value=2017;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1 https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...
- akvadrako 5y agoInteresting, but that only goes to 2018. Emissions on the USA have been trending down since then and probably up in China.
- _-david-_ 5y agoIt feels like the West is basically saying well we can move to cleaner energy so everybody should regardless of how developed they are. If they can't move to cleaner energy then they should just go without. It would be great if every country could move to clean energy, but some can't.
- aravindet 5y agoI think the solution is for historical emitters to pay the rest to forgo fossil-fuel based economic growth. Obviously, this would not happen: historical emitters also have the most political power. The US and EU's success at killing the "loss and damages" mechanism is an example of this dynamic at play. (This was supported by countries representing 85% of the world's population.)
- rsj_hn 5y agoThe problem with these UN agreements promising money is that the leaders still have to go home and get those appropriations passed. So even if 85% of the world's population wants to get money, whether or not the money is provided will depend on the 15% that has to pay. It's not a situation where you can take a vote and majority rules. So if you are running the conference and deciding to make a decision based on a vote, then your choice is to promise money and then not deliver or not promise. The former destroys the credibility of the conference, and that's an important consideration for why conferences aren't run by rules in which countries can vote themselves aid from other nations.