6 ms·

Switzerland Is Paying Poorer Nations to Cut Emissions on Its Behalf

8 points by hrldcpr 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago
Why are people acting like this is a bad thing? It's not like the same amount of CO2 causes more global warming if it's emitted by Switzerland than it does if it's emitted by Ghana or Peru. If I buy my neighbor solar panels, isn't that just as good for the environment as if I bought myself solar panels instead?
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  The people who are being paid aren't the same people as the people who are having to make do without.
  - sfe22 4y ago
    Read the article. Switzerland is already emitting less than a third per capita than an average American. Probably got stuck with the same percentage reduction to meet some global quotas, and they are increasing efficiency in other countries to meet it. I see this as double win, yet we complain here.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  There's been a well funded disinformation campaign against anything that would reduce the use of fossil fuels. They've kind of lost the battle on "are renewables a scam", "are EVs a scam", "is climate change a scam" etc. but still with pockets of resistance. Unfortunately they were fighting it on multiple fronts and are still winning on some. One where they're still winning is "are carbon credits a scam". (For completeness, in the US they're still doing okay on "is recycling a scam" and "are carbon fees a scam") So it's basically a succesful artificial conspiracy theory that we're dealing with. Rich countries paying poorer countries to escape fossil fuel dependency is an obviously good idea, but like anything it's not perfect, so if you get people angry enough then you can slow it down and sell more fossil fuels.
  - realgeniushere 4y ago
    Recycling is a scam. Just about everything you recycle gets sent to the landfill anyway. The only difference is that you feel good about yourself as you sort it into the recycling bin. One exception, I’ve been told, is aluminum.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Well, it depends on how disfunctional your country is, but generally that's not true: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/waste-recycling-in-europe https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/waste-recycling-in-europe And in the US per-state: https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/the-50-states-of-recycling-a-state-by-state-assessment-of-containers-and-packaging-recycling-rates/ https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/the-50-states-of-rec... > The study ranked each state according to its recycling rate for CCPMs in 2018, with the 10 states with the best recycling rates comprising: Maine (72%); Vermont (62%); Massachusetts (55%); Oregon (55%); Connecticut (52%); New York (51%); Minnesota (49%); Michigan (48%); New Jersey (46%); and Iowa (44%). Note for comparison purposes, that US report is on CCPM (plastic bottles and trays, glass bottles and jars, aluminium cans, steel cans and cardboard and boxboard), which the EU calls out seperately as "packaging waste" with an average of 66%. And it's 'material reprocessed rather than material collected for recycling' they count. That recent Greenpeace USA study suggests that only type 1 and 2 plastics are close to meeting their 'actually being recycled into more of the same stuff' targets across the USA.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The most impactful disinformation campaign, by far, is against nuclear power, which is far and away the most promising substitute for fossil fuels for base power. The most outrageous part of this is that this campaign is dominated and spearheaded by environmental groups and green parties. By successfully stopping the expansion of nuclear power, these groups have done more than any other faction or movement to increase CO2 emissions.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      I quite like nuclear power, advocacy of it has however mostly devolved into bashing environmentalists and green parties which raises many red flags for me. I don't know if the people still banging that drum are being disengenious, or they've just been taken in by the misinformation campaign I mentioned, but generally the more of the items I listed you hate or are suspicious of, then the more suspicious of you I am, as it lends evidence of you being someone who has been duped, so for example: If someone likes (or at least doesn't hate in a weirdly political way) carbon fees, carbon credit, heat pumps, EVs, renewables, induction stoves, green parties and environmentalists, recycling, efficiency then yeah sure I believe you like nuclear power because it's a low carbon power source, see James Hansen for example. On the other hand, if you hate carbon fees, and carbon credits, and EV subsidies, and green parties and environmentalists but love nuclear power because it's such a great low carbon source. That doesn't add up to me. You might be sincere but confused, but either way you're not really helping so motivations don't really matter. See Michael Shellenberger for example of someone who is obviously lying, or Bill Gates for someone who's just partially confused.
themerone 4y ago
There is a lot more low hanging fruit in the developing world. Money spent their could potentially yield bigger savings. Consider countries like Mongolia, where the dirtiest coal is used to heat homes. This is both an environmental and health crisis.
hulitu 4y ago
> Switzerland Is Paying Poorer Nations to Cut Emissions on Its Behalf Or as someone in an east european country said: we are selling carbon (CO2 emissions) certificates because we don't polute enough. The problem here is not Switzerland. The ptoblem are the carbon (CO2 emissions) certificates.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> President Luis Arce of Bolivia called the idea tantamount to “carbon capitalism.” That's an interesting summary.

8 points by hrldcpr 4y ago

Why are people acting like this is a bad thing? It's not like the same amount of CO2 causes more global warming if it's emitted by Switzerland than it does if it's emitted by Ghana or Peru. If I buy my neighbor solar panels, isn't that just as good for the environment as if I bought myself solar panels instead?

codefreeordie 4y ago
The people who are being paid aren't the same people as the people who are having to make do without.
- sfe22 4y ago
  Read the article. Switzerland is already emitting less than a third per capita than an average American. Probably got stuck with the same percentage reduction to meet some global quotas, and they are increasing efficiency in other countries to meet it. I see this as double win, yet we complain here.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
There's been a well funded disinformation campaign against anything that would reduce the use of fossil fuels. They've kind of lost the battle on "are renewables a scam", "are EVs a scam", "is climate change a scam" etc. but still with pockets of resistance. Unfortunately they were fighting it on multiple fronts and are still winning on some. One where they're still winning is "are carbon credits a scam". (For completeness, in the US they're still doing okay on "is recycling a scam" and "are carbon fees a scam") So it's basically a succesful artificial conspiracy theory that we're dealing with. Rich countries paying poorer countries to escape fossil fuel dependency is an obviously good idea, but like anything it's not perfect, so if you get people angry enough then you can slow it down and sell more fossil fuels.
- realgeniushere 4y ago
  Recycling is a scam. Just about everything you recycle gets sent to the landfill anyway. The only difference is that you feel good about yourself as you sort it into the recycling bin. One exception, I’ve been told, is aluminum.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Well, it depends on how disfunctional your country is, but generally that's not true: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/waste-recycling-in-europe https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/waste-recycling-in-europe And in the US per-state: https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/the-50-states-of-recycling-a-state-by-state-assessment-of-containers-and-packaging-recycling-rates/ https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/the-50-states-of-rec... > The study ranked each state according to its recycling rate for CCPMs in 2018, with the 10 states with the best recycling rates comprising: Maine (72%); Vermont (62%); Massachusetts (55%); Oregon (55%); Connecticut (52%); New York (51%); Minnesota (49%); Michigan (48%); New Jersey (46%); and Iowa (44%). Note for comparison purposes, that US report is on CCPM (plastic bottles and trays, glass bottles and jars, aluminium cans, steel cans and cardboard and boxboard), which the EU calls out seperately as "packaging waste" with an average of 66%. And it's 'material reprocessed rather than material collected for recycling' they count. That recent Greenpeace USA study suggests that only type 1 and 2 plastics are close to meeting their 'actually being recycled into more of the same stuff' targets across the USA.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The most impactful disinformation campaign, by far, is against nuclear power, which is far and away the most promising substitute for fossil fuels for base power. The most outrageous part of this is that this campaign is dominated and spearheaded by environmental groups and green parties. By successfully stopping the expansion of nuclear power, these groups have done more than any other faction or movement to increase CO2 emissions.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    I quite like nuclear power, advocacy of it has however mostly devolved into bashing environmentalists and green parties which raises many red flags for me. I don't know if the people still banging that drum are being disengenious, or they've just been taken in by the misinformation campaign I mentioned, but generally the more of the items I listed you hate or are suspicious of, then the more suspicious of you I am, as it lends evidence of you being someone who has been duped, so for example: If someone likes (or at least doesn't hate in a weirdly political way) carbon fees, carbon credit, heat pumps, EVs, renewables, induction stoves, green parties and environmentalists, recycling, efficiency then yeah sure I believe you like nuclear power because it's a low carbon power source, see James Hansen for example. On the other hand, if you hate carbon fees, and carbon credits, and EV subsidies, and green parties and environmentalists but love nuclear power because it's such a great low carbon source. That doesn't add up to me. You might be sincere but confused, but either way you're not really helping so motivations don't really matter. See Michael Shellenberger for example of someone who is obviously lying, or Bill Gates for someone who's just partially confused.

themerone 4y ago

There is a lot more low hanging fruit in the developing world. Money spent their could potentially yield bigger savings. Consider countries like Mongolia, where the dirtiest coal is used to heat homes. This is both an environmental and health crisis.

hulitu 4y ago

> Switzerland Is Paying Poorer Nations to Cut Emissions on Its Behalf Or as someone in an east european country said: we are selling carbon (CO2 emissions) certificates because we don't polute enough. The problem here is not Switzerland. The ptoblem are the carbon (CO2 emissions) certificates.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> President Luis Arce of Bolivia called the idea tantamount to “carbon capitalism.” That's an interesting summary.