3 ms·
That is incredibly short sighted. The reason why you don’t see that much pollution in your country is that it has been outsourced to other countries with more
by otikik 4y ago
That is incredibly short sighted.
The reason why you don’t see that much pollution in your country is that it has been outsourced to other countries with more lax pollution laws and less worker protection laws. This means that fabrication of an item produces more pollution than if it was built in your country (where there’s more regulation). And then there’s even more pollution due to the long transportation haul.
But you get a cheaper price tag. And your rivers are clean.
But think about these things when putting blame.
- larsiusprime 4y agoCan you back that up with evidence? I'm not sure what the situation is for Europe/the UK, but for the US it really doesn't seem to be the case that we are outsourcing our emissions: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/no-the-us-didnt-outsource-our-carbon https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/no-the-us-didnt-outsource-...
- Aunche 4y agoMaybe it's not to the extent that people are saying, but the charts clearly show that the EU and the US do outsource their emissions.
- ch4s3 4y agoIn the same way that any imports involve extraterritorial emissions. The US manufacturers a lot of things and and does so with pretty good environmental standards compared to most other places.
- larsiusprime 4y agoYes, but not to a sufficient degree that is congruent with the point people are trying to make (ie, that the outsourced emissions swamp the decrease in domestic emissions). Net emissions from the developed world -- in aggregate and per capita -- are declining.
- otikik 4y agoI believe the “consumption-based CO2” graph used on the article, which is the main pillar, falls short on three accounts: * It measures the CO2 it takes to constuct, but leaves (seems to leave out) the CO2 cost of transportation. When a TV has to travel around the world that cost isn’t trivial. * The article focuses on CO2 exclusively. If a TV made in China produces about the same CO2 as one done on shore, all is good, even if the former involves (for example) dumping acid into a river, which would be illegal in the US. Even if we want to keep the discussion exclusively about climate change, other emissions must be taken into account. Methane for example is 50 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. * The whole part about it being “only” about 18% in the case of Europe (that’s a lot!) and that “it has not changed much in the last 30 years” (that makes it worse!)
- dan-robertson 4y agoAt least for CO2, emissions haven’t been outsourced much. At least, emissions in developed countries are still falling when adjusting for trade. Most of the rising emissions in developing countries like China and India are due to them getting richer rather than becoming the worlds factories. I don’t know how other pollutants compare. Likely worse as they are not an issue for western companies to care about so much. On CO2: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
- nostromo 4y agoGermany and the US also export a tremendous amount of goods, and do so without clogging up our rivers (and eventually the ocean) with trash. And studies have shown that only 15% of China's CO2 emissions are for the production of exports. That means that 85% of their CO2 emissions are for local production. [1] Lastly, the amount of economic value the US and other advanced nations produce per unit of Co2 is much higher than China, which is one of the least efficient from Co2 to value. [2] 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15883-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15883-9 2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?most_...
- miguelazo 4y agoThat's mostly due to the TYPES of exports involved.
- ch4s3 4y agoThe US exports cars, steel, cotton, natural gas, coal, plastics, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and on and on. On the note of pharmaceuticals and India, there’s a stark difference. Indian manufacturers dumb literal tons on antibiotics and their byproducts into rivers, and no US pharma company does this at all.
- yrgulation 4y agoNot at all, no. You know whats short sighted tho? Skipping the part where i said we _all_ need to do our part and that there is pollution here as well, and jumping straight into deflecting the blame on to “us” while not doing enough.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoWe are to blame and are not doing enough though. Your action needs to start from there or it's just excuses.
- yrgulation 4y agoWe do carry some of the blame. But we are not responsible for local politicians all too happy to accept bribes and societies all too happy to close their eyes. Why are there no strong environmentalist movements in india? Is it a democracy or not? Cant people in china see whats happening with their rivers and cities? You cant possibly have one billion people sitting idle and doing nothing to change the status quo, and then shift the blame on us.
- otikik 4y agoI actually don’t blame “they” or us. I blame the extremely rich, of all nations. And then that trickles down.
- datadata 4y agoThe fact that we all seem to agree that rich countries will pay a premium to keep their rivers clean seems to at the very least undermine the central argument of the article that capitalism places zero value on preserving the environment.