3 ms·

> when the future of the environment will be decided by developing countries, not us. There is a balance to be made here. This is not just misleading but strai

> when the future of the environment will be decided by developing countries, not us. There is a balance to be made here. This is not just misleading but straight up wrong. Sure, western nations don't dominate global population numbers (and are mostly shrinking too), but the United states alone emit TWICE the amount of CO2 compared to India, with 1/4 the population. Just saying "the future of the environment is on you, India, China, Africa, since there is not much we Americans can do, there are just not enough of us" is sickeningly hypocritical. Also, how are you going to convince ANY developing nation that struggles to lift their population out of poverty that paying for environmental protection is necessary, while you (as a rich westerner) sit on your ass?! Sorry for the confrontational tone, but I feel I HAVE to correct this because it is an extremely popular sentiment ("we're already doing more than our part for the environment in the west, now it's on the Chinese/Indians/etc."), and this is completely unsupported by facts.

Neil44 4y ago
You assume I’m American, I’m not. Also the article is about Dutch people. CO2 is only one metric of pollution. And as India is 4x the population of the US what difference will the amount of Nitrogen Dutch farmers use make once the Indians achieve a US style standard of living? Bugger all that’s how much. So they’re correctly asking why on earth they’re being put out of jobs over this at this time.
- myrmidon 4y ago
  Your argument does not make sense. Of course fewer people have less influence on the outcome, but that is not an excuse to do less (per person) in the smaller group. India could just split into 2000 states and turn your argument straight around... This is just not how collective obligation works, in the very same way that you absolutely CANT argue with your tax officials that "it doesn't really make a difference whether I pay" (or your village/city if they're small). I just picked America as example because they're arguably the worst of the bunch in Co2/capita (except some rich tiny states like Luxembourg), so good on you for doing better than them (probably). Also feel free to make an argument using different metrics for pollution, but I have strong doubts that you could change the conclusions-- also consider that climate change is precisely that big a problem because it is not quickly reversible at all. Co2 is also a metric where you can get easily comparable numbers and those are already unfavorable even WITHOUT taking into account how much pollution is outsourced by wealthy nations (which is hard to quantify).
- peterashford 4y ago
  This is what New Zealand farmers say, also. And we're one of the largest diary exporters in the world. If the largest dairy exporters are all saying "well, we're a small country, we can't make any difference" where does that lead us? Its obviously the wrong way to look at it. If 1 person was responsible for 10% of the world's emissions, you wouldn't say "well, he's only one person so it doesn't matter"

Neil44 4y ago

You assume I’m American, I’m not. Also the article is about Dutch people. CO2 is only one metric of pollution. And as India is 4x the population of the US what difference will the amount of Nitrogen Dutch farmers use make once the Indians achieve a US style standard of living? Bugger all that’s how much. So they’re correctly asking why on earth they’re being put out of jobs over this at this time.

myrmidon 4y ago
Your argument does not make sense. Of course fewer people have less influence on the outcome, but that is not an excuse to do less (per person) in the smaller group. India could just split into 2000 states and turn your argument straight around... This is just not how collective obligation works, in the very same way that you absolutely CANT argue with your tax officials that "it doesn't really make a difference whether I pay" (or your village/city if they're small). I just picked America as example because they're arguably the worst of the bunch in Co2/capita (except some rich tiny states like Luxembourg), so good on you for doing better than them (probably). Also feel free to make an argument using different metrics for pollution, but I have strong doubts that you could change the conclusions-- also consider that climate change is precisely that big a problem because it is not quickly reversible at all. Co2 is also a metric where you can get easily comparable numbers and those are already unfavorable even WITHOUT taking into account how much pollution is outsourced by wealthy nations (which is hard to quantify).
peterashford 4y ago
This is what New Zealand farmers say, also. And we're one of the largest diary exporters in the world. If the largest dairy exporters are all saying "well, we're a small country, we can't make any difference" where does that lead us? Its obviously the wrong way to look at it. If 1 person was responsible for 10% of the world's emissions, you wouldn't say "well, he's only one person so it doesn't matter"