4 ms·

Isn't it objectively true that the countries producing the most CO2 are more to blame? As are the ones doing the least to curb emissions.

• bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Just because it's true doesn't make it right. This is where the proverb "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes from. You don't have the moral standing to criticize the CO2 emissions of others if you aren't doing anything yourself, even if the others are worse than yourself. OTOH, only when you are leading by example do you have the moral standing.
  • bavell 4y ago
    So are you saying the "right" answer is to not focus on the biggest sources of CO2 production? And this is the best way to lower CO2 production? It seems like whenever anyone points out the obvious above, others will jump in saying we can't point fingers but they don't offer any real solutions either. Around and around we go.
    • bryanlarsen 4y ago
      The right answer is to focus on what is possible in your jurisdiction.
      • bavell 4y ago
        Yes but if that's all we do then unfortunately our current trajectory will remain essentially unchanged.
  • giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I don't think that's quite the case. For a simple example you can consider a developing area without an electric grid, where people individually or on a community level burn fossil fuels to provide lighting and heat, power schools and medical facilities. This use is fundamentally different from an industrialized nation that has a fully powered electric grid and alternative means to power it, but uses fossil fuel out of price or convenience considerations. Yes, it's rarely this clear-cut in reality, life and economics are complicated, etc. Still though, it's clear to me that not all fossil fuel use is ethically the same, and people still using fossil fuels can indeed have valid moral positions against others using them.
• gambiting 4y ago
  >>Isn't it objectively true that the countries producing the most CO2 are more to blame? No, I would say the countries that have already produced(in total) the most CO2 are the ones most to blame. And those aren't the same countries as the ones emitting the most right now.
  • bsuvc 4y ago
    Good point about blame not being a point in time measurement. As far as going forward though, the countries currently producing the most CO2 are the ones most able to have an impact by reducing their CO2 emissions.
    • kiliantics 4y ago
      I think that the most wealthy and powerful can have a greater impact than the largest producers. Why does China produce so much CO2? A lot of it is to satisfy the massive demand coming from the West for all the cheap stuff they make. If we put a carbon tax on imported goods, and used the revenue to invest in sustainable infrastructure (ideally back into those same producers, not just at home), I believe we would see positive changes pretty quickly. Simply pointing fingers at producers will get us nowhere if we don't actively try to change incentives and support other countries and institutions to get up to speed. After all, many of the poorest countries that have begun to grow were historically prevented from modernising by their western colonisers. So in some sense the blame still falls largely on the West.
• trinovantes 4y ago
  One problem with this line of thinking is you just end up with a deadlock between countries pointing at each other with "You're higher pollution per capita" vs "You're higher total pollution" e.g. Canada as a whole doesn't emit that much CO2 but we emit a lot per capita because it takes a lot of energy to keep warm and renewables are not as reliable further north. Our political parties frequently like to point out we're <2% of the global footprint as justification to increase investments in oil/gas while conveniently omitting that we're 0.5% of the global population.
  • mdp2021 4y ago
    > per capita Of all the possible debate proposals for the exploration of complexity in the problem, the one that can have the most limited credit is the idea that "total production" could be the metric to base policy. That better metrics than "per capita" could be found (energy spent how, by what, with which care towards compensating the externalities), sure, granted, complex but interesting - but that a gross aggregation could mean anything is hardly serious. It would be akin to "The one with the highest total GDP picks the short straw". It may happen that somebody steps in with the idea, sure, but the answer - at least in terms of discussion - would be easy (and involve a "this is not serious").