6 ms·

> And yet, it's largely the global north, and America in specific Are you blaming Americans for China's environmental destruction because we buy their products

> And yet, it's largely the global north, and America in specific Are you blaming Americans for China's environmental destruction because we buy their products? Americans have created systems that protect the environment that China could take advantage of > They said they feel guilty for being happy that others will suffer immensely while they get to skate relatively unharmed I can't do anymore than I am doing to correct wrongs. I'm not mad at the English currently alive because their ancestors starved my Irish ancestors and I don't feel guilty that some of my ancestors might have owned slaves. I want to be happy, but weirdly some people don't and are always finding reasons to be unhappy. “I have noticed that a man is usually about as happy as he has made up his mind to be.” - Abraham Lincoln

wbsss4412 4y ago
Look at the CO2 chart in the link above, China only recently became the biggest emitter and even then they make up maybe a quarter of CO2 emissions. The vast majority of emissions and environmental destruction has been done by the global north, only recently has the rest of the world started to become the majority in this sense. You can’t just point the finger and forget all of history up to this point.
- nradov 4y ago
  China is part of the global North. Beijing is located at 40 °N latitude.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    I’m not sure if you’re just unfamiliar but, no, China is not part of the global north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South?...
    - nradov 4y ago
      That's such a ridiculous definition as to be utterly useless for any real analysis. North Korea is "South" and South Korea is "North". Got it. I can't believe anyone would take this stuff seriously. But I'm sure it's popular with the officious busybodies in some international NGOs.
      - wbsss4412 4y ago
        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I can see how it’s confusing, but it’s a fairly well understood term by people within geopolitical circles. Unless you believe latitude is the most important explanatory variable in geopolitics, I don’t think the edge cases are such a big deal as to prevent us from using global north/south as a shorthand.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Are you blaming Americans for China's environmental destruction because we buy their products? Americans have created systems that protect the environment that China could take advantage of Some of the systems may make products expensive, and the whole point of offshoring production to China (from the US and other places), so to make them inexpensively. Are consumers willing to start paying the externalities of climate change in their products (regardless of where they are produced)? And as Kurzgesagt points out in "Who Is Responsible For Climate Change? – Who Needs To Fix It?", while China as a whole releases the most, per capita each citizen is relatively low(er) emissions (especially compared to the US). Further, the country with highest cumulatively/historically released carbon to date—which has led us to the climate change problem in the first place—is the US: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw

wbsss4412 4y ago

Look at the CO2 chart in the link above, China only recently became the biggest emitter and even then they make up maybe a quarter of CO2 emissions. The vast majority of emissions and environmental destruction has been done by the global north, only recently has the rest of the world started to become the majority in this sense. You can’t just point the finger and forget all of history up to this point.

nradov 4y ago
China is part of the global North. Beijing is located at 40 °N latitude.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  I’m not sure if you’re just unfamiliar but, no, China is not part of the global north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South?...
  - nradov 4y ago
    That's such a ridiculous definition as to be utterly useless for any real analysis. North Korea is "South" and South Korea is "North". Got it. I can't believe anyone would take this stuff seriously. But I'm sure it's popular with the officious busybodies in some international NGOs.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I can see how it’s confusing, but it’s a fairly well understood term by people within geopolitical circles. Unless you believe latitude is the most important explanatory variable in geopolitics, I don’t think the edge cases are such a big deal as to prevent us from using global north/south as a shorthand.

throw0101c 4y ago

> Are you blaming Americans for China's environmental destruction because we buy their products? Americans have created systems that protect the environment that China could take advantage of Some of the systems may make products expensive, and the whole point of offshoring production to China (from the US and other places), so to make them inexpensively. Are consumers willing to start paying the externalities of climate change in their products (regardless of where they are produced)? And as Kurzgesagt points out in "Who Is Responsible For Climate Change? – Who Needs To Fix It?", while China as a whole releases the most, per capita each citizen is relatively low(er) emissions (especially compared to the US). Further, the country with highest cumulatively/historically released carbon to date—which has led us to the climate change problem in the first place—is the US: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw