6 ms·

You cannot solve a puzzle by picking out one piece. You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming th

by sazz 4y ago

You cannot solve a puzzle by picking out one piece. You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. That is short-sighted thinking. A per capita figure may play a role in politics in negotiations, but it is not relevant for solving the problem. It is like accusing a Norwegian living in a fjord of wasting water. For example, it is completely irrelevant how high the per capita consumption of an Icelander is. Or a Greenlander. Because it doesn't solve the problem. Yes, the US has a higher consumption. But it's just 334 million inhabitants vs 1,440 million in China (which still puts America in the top five, but far behind China). If you really want to solve the problem then you need to develop a practical solution for China. But let me ask you a question: Let's imagine that everything is suddenly perfect in your country. The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then?

myrmidon 4y ago
The CO2 footprint of an Icelander is EXACTLY as relevant as the footprint of a Chinese citizen. Just because Iceland, as a whole, has less effect than China as a whole does not absolve it from contributing THEIR part in any form. Just reconsider your argument: If China is split into 20 independent nation states, then suddenly NONE of those would be "relevant to solving the problem"? > You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. You, as a nation, can ABSOLUTELY not expect to first not even come close to doing your part and then let others pick up the slack for you, just because "there are ten others and only one of me, whatever I do won't make or break things anyway". > The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then? This is a complete strawman. You are not going to beat developing nations in CO2/capita. India/Africa is below 2 tons per year right now, there is simply NO WAY that the US or even EU could even come close to competing with that in YEARS. What you can and have to do is approach the lower emissions of developing nations, demonstrating that a wealthy modern society is feasible without excessive CO2 emissions-- then you help developing nations in not exceeding your level. It is very obvious to me that it's MUCH easier to cut 1 of 15 tons of CO2/year for a wealthy American (=> "buy a hybrid car for wife/kids instead of another SUV"), than it is to save 200kg each for five Indian rice farmers (=> "no heating in winter?").
- sazz 4y ago
  It seems to me that you are not at all interested in a real solution to the problem. For you, the solution is already clear: everyone has to make their contribution, no matter how big or small. The interesting thing is that your solution is not problem-driven, but purely ideological. Whether the solution can be implemented practicably, from my point of view doesn't seem to be any interest to you - as long as all subordinate themselves to some kind of strange socialist maxim, in which not the individual counts but only the people (in this case a kind of state union). Because a problem-oriented approach for a solution would be to look at the number of political systems and what part of the CO2 budget they control. It makes a fundamental difference to implement effects in 20 different systems or in one. Because time matters. And therefore efficiency. So why waste time on Iceland if China plays a much more fundamental role in the issue. So if China were divided into 20 political systems - states - the situation would be different. But it isn't. Again, it seems to me that you don't care about the structure of the problem as long as everyone follows the given morality plan. And to answer your question - the first and only interest of an Indian rice farmer is to care about it's family. To fight starvation. And maybe that his or her children may have a better life than being an Indian rice farmer - so they spend their money rather on school education than having a single thought on global warming. The same is roughly true for China. China's first interest is prosperity for its citizens. You don't stand at the head of such a country without looking at the needs of your own people. Your whole solution is already going against the very nature of man: to be an egoist driven by instincts. Do you really believe that the goals will be achieved worldwide? What if someone resists to join in? Do you then want to enforce these goals with weapons? What I would really like to know is: Do you seriously believe that in the next 5-10 years humanity will overcome its differences and together put its economic interests aside to achieve the goal? And all this without the greatest social riots ever seen? So do you really see a realistic possibility that the problem is solved in the next 10 years? And what happens if not?
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    > Your whole solution is already going against the very nature of man: to be an egoist driven by instincts. And your solution is to push all the effort on others, because there are more of them? You still did not address in the slightest how this could ever work-- how are you going to convince the Chinese people that they need to reduce their emissions from 8 to 5 tons each, while EVERY american citizen emits 15?! > It makes a fundamental difference to implement effects in 20 different systems or in one. Because time matters. And therefore efficiency. How so? Every nation is going to implement these on their own anyway, and this can all happen in parallel. The US is not gonna be any faster or slower in electrifying vehicles or cleaning up power generation just because China does the same at the same time... > What I would really like to know is: Do you seriously believe that in the next 5-10 years humanity will overcome its differences and together put its economic interests aside to achieve the goal? And all this without the greatest social riots ever seen? This is not black or white, and every investment towards getting rid of fossils is already a step where someone put sustainability above economics. So YES, because this is already happening (to a degree). There is also historical precedent with getting rid of leaded fuel and CFCs, where international cooperation worked out decently. But I still believe that we're gonna fail the 2°C threshold because we did too little too late.

by sazz 4y ago

myrmidon 4y ago

The CO2 footprint of an Icelander is EXACTLY as relevant as the footprint of a Chinese citizen. Just because Iceland, as a whole, has less effect than China as a whole does not absolve it from contributing THEIR part in any form. Just reconsider your argument: If China is split into 20 independent nation states, then suddenly NONE of those would be "relevant to solving the problem"? > You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. You, as a nation, can ABSOLUTELY not expect to first not even come close to doing your part and then let others pick up the slack for you, just because "there are ten others and only one of me, whatever I do won't make or break things anyway". > The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then? This is a complete strawman. You are not going to beat developing nations in CO2/capita. India/Africa is below 2 tons per year right now, there is simply NO WAY that the US or even EU could even come close to competing with that in YEARS. What you can and have to do is approach the lower emissions of developing nations, demonstrating that a wealthy modern society is feasible without excessive CO2 emissions-- then you help developing nations in not exceeding your level. It is very obvious to me that it's MUCH easier to cut 1 of 15 tons of CO2/year for a wealthy American (=> "buy a hybrid car for wife/kids instead of another SUV"), than it is to save 200kg each for five Indian rice farmers (=> "no heating in winter?").

sazz 4y ago
It seems to me that you are not at all interested in a real solution to the problem. For you, the solution is already clear: everyone has to make their contribution, no matter how big or small. The interesting thing is that your solution is not problem-driven, but purely ideological. Whether the solution can be implemented practicably, from my point of view doesn't seem to be any interest to you - as long as all subordinate themselves to some kind of strange socialist maxim, in which not the individual counts but only the people (in this case a kind of state union). Because a problem-oriented approach for a solution would be to look at the number of political systems and what part of the CO2 budget they control. It makes a fundamental difference to implement effects in 20 different systems or in one. Because time matters. And therefore efficiency. So why waste time on Iceland if China plays a much more fundamental role in the issue. So if China were divided into 20 political systems - states - the situation would be different. But it isn't. Again, it seems to me that you don't care about the structure of the problem as long as everyone follows the given morality plan. And to answer your question - the first and only interest of an Indian rice farmer is to care about it's family. To fight starvation. And maybe that his or her children may have a better life than being an Indian rice farmer - so they spend their money rather on school education than having a single thought on global warming. The same is roughly true for China. China's first interest is prosperity for its citizens. You don't stand at the head of such a country without looking at the needs of your own people. Your whole solution is already going against the very nature of man: to be an egoist driven by instincts. Do you really believe that the goals will be achieved worldwide? What if someone resists to join in? Do you then want to enforce these goals with weapons? What I would really like to know is: Do you seriously believe that in the next 5-10 years humanity will overcome its differences and together put its economic interests aside to achieve the goal? And all this without the greatest social riots ever seen? So do you really see a realistic possibility that the problem is solved in the next 10 years? And what happens if not?
- myrmidon 4y ago
  > Your whole solution is already going against the very nature of man: to be an egoist driven by instincts. And your solution is to push all the effort on others, because there are more of them? You still did not address in the slightest how this could ever work-- how are you going to convince the Chinese people that they need to reduce their emissions from 8 to 5 tons each, while EVERY american citizen emits 15?! > It makes a fundamental difference to implement effects in 20 different systems or in one. Because time matters. And therefore efficiency. How so? Every nation is going to implement these on their own anyway, and this can all happen in parallel. The US is not gonna be any faster or slower in electrifying vehicles or cleaning up power generation just because China does the same at the same time... > What I would really like to know is: Do you seriously believe that in the next 5-10 years humanity will overcome its differences and together put its economic interests aside to achieve the goal? And all this without the greatest social riots ever seen? This is not black or white, and every investment towards getting rid of fossils is already a step where someone put sustainability above economics. So YES, because this is already happening (to a degree). There is also historical precedent with getting rid of leaded fuel and CFCs, where international cooperation worked out decently. But I still believe that we're gonna fail the 2°C threshold because we did too little too late.