8 ms·

yes, we should not because thats a wrong statment. The correct one is that kids from undeveloped world die from climate change.

by Fckd 5y ago

pvaldes 5y ago
And that the developed world will became undeveloped in terms of natural disasters. Apart of this, all will be perfectly fine.
- overallduka 5y ago
  This claim is in the same category of Al-Gore's response that Artic Ice would vanish by 2020.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    We are in 2021. Unless tabloids claim, scientific models have error intervals, so you should be aware that what Al-Gore claimed still can happen. And failing in a single prediction does not invalidate magically all the other models. Ecological problems are complex and chaotic problems by nature. Much more complex that building an app. Being wrong is totally normal, and even necessary to understand and improve the model. So this would be like discarding an entire program of millions of lines because, gasp, one bug was found. Bugs are expected and even welcomed. They are tests that allow us to improve much faster If the problem is what was said by <"politician"> from <"random color"> that you dislike, you are attacking the problem in all the wrong ways.
rsj_hn 5y ago
With this type of fear mongering, more people will die from the fight against climate change than climate change itself. For example, fertilizer is made from fossil fuels, so attempts to raise the price of fossil fuels or prevent companies from obtaining these fuels results in starvation. Similarly raising the price of things like home heating oil or gasoline will devastate poor nations. Madagascar had a famine because it wasn't able to afford fertilizer due to the twin effects of loss of revenue from covid lockdowns and an increase in fertilizer prices. Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience. It also requires having something to replace fossil fuels that is as cheap otherwise poor nations wont be able to afford it. This means purely relying on market solutions to increase prices and let replacements bubble from the market is a recipe for disaster in the developing world.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  One minor but important detail: fertilizers are made with hydrogen that is currently coming from natural gas. But it could be exchanged to some other source, or the superfluous carbon could be stored in solid form etc.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    But those options don't exist at the moment due to their cost, so it's pretty foolish to raise the price of something now because in theory, a replacement might become cost effective in the future. A rich nation can take a hit like that but a poor nation can't -- they will just have a famine. In other words, have that replacement in place and available before you start messing with the price of fossil fuels. I really want to push against this neoliberal "carbon credit" mentality where we think market solutions will somehow provide replacements as needed. If you want to shut down a coal plant, fine first build the nuclear plant, and then switch over to the coal plant. If you want solar and are convinced batteries will work, then fine, build the batteries first and then switch over. Don't just rely on "the market" to allow you to shut something down and assume replacements will just appear.
    - Gravityloss 5y ago
      Sure, there are effects like you describe. But also, the new alternatives can't compete if the old polluting alternatives don't have to pay anything for their pollution. Unless the new ones are subsidized a lot.
- js8 5y ago
  "Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience." The problem is nature around us is losing this patience. Good luck convincing it! But I agree just market solutions (carbon pricing) won't cut it, although for the opposite reason - they are acting too slowly.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
mojuba 5y ago
Absolutely. The recent epidemic and how the vaccines were distributed have shown that the wealthy countries generally don't care about the rest of the world. Humanity is very fragmented and can't act as a whole on important global issues, that's what the epidemic revealed.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Ironically, this discriminatory policy is also a reason for the supply shortages - underdeveloped countries are the suppliers for the whole developed world.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  > The recent epidemic and how the vaccines were distributed have shown that the wealthy countries generally don't care about the rest of the world. Yeah, apart of saving countless human lives in all countries spending tons of their money and talent to bring us in a time record with the only real solution to this global emergency with a, not one vaccine, a handful of vaccines that in fact work... what they did to help the humanity in this emergency? uh? Everything?
yunohn 5y ago
The underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed by the developed world - in order to maintain their way of living. The resulting economic imbalance and class hierarchy are crucial to the developed worlds survival. So I’m quite surprised that you think that the climate change will only affect the “under”-developed? Maybe the direct temperature change might, but the ripple effects will be global.
- dtx1 5y ago
  This is utter marxist bullshit in its finest form. The "under"-developed world has been given trillions in aid and almost every statistic shows that they are doing better than ever before [1]. This is due to capitalism and billions of aid every year [2] that is paid from the taxes from OUR WORK. And again with covid we see the developed world spending massive amounts of money and recources to help the rest of the world get the vaccines. You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. This spiteful pseudo interlectual left wing bullshit is helping no one. Sure we COULD do better but we are FAR from enslaving lesser developed countries. And it's not like there aren't humanitarian catastrophies SOLELY due to the utter incompetence of these countries and THEIR elected leaders and i'm sick of the double standard we have. Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? To deficient in their intellect to see an unfair deal when it's offered to them? That's the soft bigotry of low expectations in it's purest form and i'm sick and tired of it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr... [1] Just an example source https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health...
  - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
    > You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. You really ought to look at what France is currently doing in Africa. If you want to disagree with the parent that Africans or those in the developing world are intentionally oppressed, just because millions are no longer slaughtered is no mitigation of their point.
goodpoint 5y ago
And it happened many times in history, unfortunately: when food, water or land become scarcer for whatever reason people compete more for them. Those with more wealth and/or the bigger army get the food, water or land. The other ones suffer or die.
prepend 5y ago
I don’t think that’s correct either. The undeveloped world is improving well and it’s way better now than 50 years ago with projections for continued improved standard of living. Climate change is making this harder, but most of the undeveloped world today is going to be much better off in 100 years in terms of disease, war, and opportunity. So making catastrophic statements like this are as credible as saying that vaping is going to kill kids.

yes, we should not because thats a wrong statment. The correct one is that kids from undeveloped world die from climate change.

by Fckd 5y ago

yes, we should not because thats a wrong statment. The correct one is that kids from undeveloped world die from climate change.

pvaldes 5y ago

And that the developed world will became undeveloped in terms of natural disasters. Apart of this, all will be perfectly fine.

overallduka 5y ago
This claim is in the same category of Al-Gore's response that Artic Ice would vanish by 2020.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  We are in 2021. Unless tabloids claim, scientific models have error intervals, so you should be aware that what Al-Gore claimed still can happen. And failing in a single prediction does not invalidate magically all the other models. Ecological problems are complex and chaotic problems by nature. Much more complex that building an app. Being wrong is totally normal, and even necessary to understand and improve the model. So this would be like discarding an entire program of millions of lines because, gasp, one bug was found. Bugs are expected and even welcomed. They are tests that allow us to improve much faster If the problem is what was said by <"politician"> from <"random color"> that you dislike, you are attacking the problem in all the wrong ways.

rsj_hn 5y ago

With this type of fear mongering, more people will die from the fight against climate change than climate change itself. For example, fertilizer is made from fossil fuels, so attempts to raise the price of fossil fuels or prevent companies from obtaining these fuels results in starvation. Similarly raising the price of things like home heating oil or gasoline will devastate poor nations. Madagascar had a famine because it wasn't able to afford fertilizer due to the twin effects of loss of revenue from covid lockdowns and an increase in fertilizer prices. Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience. It also requires having something to replace fossil fuels that is as cheap otherwise poor nations wont be able to afford it. This means purely relying on market solutions to increase prices and let replacements bubble from the market is a recipe for disaster in the developing world.

Gravityloss 5y ago
One minor but important detail: fertilizers are made with hydrogen that is currently coming from natural gas. But it could be exchanged to some other source, or the superfluous carbon could be stored in solid form etc.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  But those options don't exist at the moment due to their cost, so it's pretty foolish to raise the price of something now because in theory, a replacement might become cost effective in the future. A rich nation can take a hit like that but a poor nation can't -- they will just have a famine. In other words, have that replacement in place and available before you start messing with the price of fossil fuels. I really want to push against this neoliberal "carbon credit" mentality where we think market solutions will somehow provide replacements as needed. If you want to shut down a coal plant, fine first build the nuclear plant, and then switch over to the coal plant. If you want solar and are convinced batteries will work, then fine, build the batteries first and then switch over. Don't just rely on "the market" to allow you to shut something down and assume replacements will just appear.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    Sure, there are effects like you describe. But also, the new alternatives can't compete if the old polluting alternatives don't have to pay anything for their pollution. Unless the new ones are subsidized a lot.
js8 5y ago
"Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience." The problem is nature around us is losing this patience. Good luck convincing it! But I agree just market solutions (carbon pricing) won't cut it, although for the opposite reason - they are acting too slowly.
- rsj_hn 5y ago

mojuba 5y ago

Absolutely. The recent epidemic and how the vaccines were distributed have shown that the wealthy countries generally don't care about the rest of the world. Humanity is very fragmented and can't act as a whole on important global issues, that's what the epidemic revealed.

yunohn 5y ago
Ironically, this discriminatory policy is also a reason for the supply shortages - underdeveloped countries are the suppliers for the whole developed world.
pvaldes 5y ago
> The recent epidemic and how the vaccines were distributed have shown that the wealthy countries generally don't care about the rest of the world. Yeah, apart of saving countless human lives in all countries spending tons of their money and talent to bring us in a time record with the only real solution to this global emergency with a, not one vaccine, a handful of vaccines that in fact work... what they did to help the humanity in this emergency? uh? Everything?

yunohn 5y ago

The underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed by the developed world - in order to maintain their way of living. The resulting economic imbalance and class hierarchy are crucial to the developed worlds survival. So I’m quite surprised that you think that the climate change will only affect the “under”-developed? Maybe the direct temperature change might, but the ripple effects will be global.

dtx1 5y ago
This is utter marxist bullshit in its finest form. The "under"-developed world has been given trillions in aid and almost every statistic shows that they are doing better than ever before [1]. This is due to capitalism and billions of aid every year [2] that is paid from the taxes from OUR WORK. And again with covid we see the developed world spending massive amounts of money and recources to help the rest of the world get the vaccines. You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. This spiteful pseudo interlectual left wing bullshit is helping no one. Sure we COULD do better but we are FAR from enslaving lesser developed countries. And it's not like there aren't humanitarian catastrophies SOLELY due to the utter incompetence of these countries and THEIR elected leaders and i'm sick of the double standard we have. Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? To deficient in their intellect to see an unfair deal when it's offered to them? That's the soft bigotry of low expectations in it's purest form and i'm sick and tired of it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr... [1] Just an example source https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health...
- eliasmacpherson 5y ago
  > You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. You really ought to look at what France is currently doing in Africa. If you want to disagree with the parent that Africans or those in the developing world are intentionally oppressed, just because millions are no longer slaughtered is no mitigation of their point.

goodpoint 5y ago

And it happened many times in history, unfortunately: when food, water or land become scarcer for whatever reason people compete more for them. Those with more wealth and/or the bigger army get the food, water or land. The other ones suffer or die.

prepend 5y ago

I don’t think that’s correct either. The undeveloped world is improving well and it’s way better now than 50 years ago with projections for continued improved standard of living. Climate change is making this harder, but most of the undeveloped world today is going to be much better off in 100 years in terms of disease, war, and opportunity. So making catastrophic statements like this are as credible as saying that vaping is going to kill kids.