3 ms·

It sounds like doublespeak to me. Inaction is a lack of action. You're saying they didn't act, but you they did act and therefore what you said is correct. Y

It sounds like doublespeak to me. Inaction is a lack of action. You're saying they didn't act, but you they did act and therefore what you said is correct. You're argument is quite convoluted at this point. That graph is good at pointing out that historically the US has contributed more than anyone. I didn't dispute that. It just seems like a silly argument to go back hundreds of years before any powers recognized it was an issue and use that as a basis for what should be done going forward so that other countries can catch up to the US's historically awful record. You see something, you fix it.

runarberg 3y ago
The argument in the Kyoto protocol was that industrialized nations were already industrialized and had the economic and industrial capabilities to replace their infrastructure with less polluting ones. Poorer nations didn’t have this benefit, so it would be unfair to ask the same of them. You can say this argument is not sound, if you do, just be aware this is the same tactic used by the oil lobby that killed the protocol, it was not done in good faith back then, and I think the same is true of modern incarnation of these refutations. Actually in more resent climate proposals, delegates from poorer nations, and climate justice advocates, have actually been trying to push for a development fund in which richer nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries, the historic polluters—especially the USA—have predictably pushed back against this and landed on a much weaker climate relief fund at the last COP. If the oil lobby (and by extension the USA government) was sincere about the supposed unfairness of the Kyoto protocol, this would be a great compromise, and totally align with You see something, you fix it. But alas, they are bad actors, and such proposals yielded limited results. I don’t think it is fruitful for us to be arguing about what I meant by inaction in my previous posts. You obviously misunderstood me, I tried to clarify but you still persist that I didn’t mean what I say I meant. The original point was that there exists a historic president for an international agreement of reducing carbon emissions, which everyone agreed to. Future agreements should therefor be possible. Identifying bad actors and pointing fingers at those at fault for previous agreements failing seems relevant to this discussion.
- frumper 3y ago
  It just seems squirrely to double down that inaction doesn't mean inaction. You seem to be pushing your ideas more than you seem to be thinking about what they actually sound like.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    But it is right, inaction to commit to international agreements does not mean inaction to reduce carbon emission. Those are separate things. And when the conversation is explicitly about the (im)possibility of international agreements, it should be clear which inaction I’m talking about. And of course I’m pushing my ideas. The history of who killed the Kyoto protocol is still up for debate. I’m of the opinion that the death of the Kyoto protocol and all subsequent agreements rests in one bad actor, the USA. There is not a historic consensus about this, and you’ll find historic accounts that disagree with this (or more likely you’ll find historians putting less importance on the Kyoto protocol than I do). I’m pushing what I believe is the most accurate—or rather the most relevant—narrative of history here.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Complaining about someone saying they aren't committing to do something while they generally do that thing doesn't seem like a good complaint. Diplomacy has a lot of moving parts.

runarberg 3y ago

The argument in the Kyoto protocol was that industrialized nations were already industrialized and had the economic and industrial capabilities to replace their infrastructure with less polluting ones. Poorer nations didn’t have this benefit, so it would be unfair to ask the same of them. You can say this argument is not sound, if you do, just be aware this is the same tactic used by the oil lobby that killed the protocol, it was not done in good faith back then, and I think the same is true of modern incarnation of these refutations. Actually in more resent climate proposals, delegates from poorer nations, and climate justice advocates, have actually been trying to push for a development fund in which richer nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries, the historic polluters—especially the USA—have predictably pushed back against this and landed on a much weaker climate relief fund at the last COP. If the oil lobby (and by extension the USA government) was sincere about the supposed unfairness of the Kyoto protocol, this would be a great compromise, and totally align with You see something, you fix it. But alas, they are bad actors, and such proposals yielded limited results. I don’t think it is fruitful for us to be arguing about what I meant by inaction in my previous posts. You obviously misunderstood me, I tried to clarify but you still persist that I didn’t mean what I say I meant. The original point was that there exists a historic president for an international agreement of reducing carbon emissions, which everyone agreed to. Future agreements should therefor be possible. Identifying bad actors and pointing fingers at those at fault for previous agreements failing seems relevant to this discussion.

frumper 3y ago
It just seems squirrely to double down that inaction doesn't mean inaction. You seem to be pushing your ideas more than you seem to be thinking about what they actually sound like.
- runarberg 3y ago
  But it is right, inaction to commit to international agreements does not mean inaction to reduce carbon emission. Those are separate things. And when the conversation is explicitly about the (im)possibility of international agreements, it should be clear which inaction I’m talking about. And of course I’m pushing my ideas. The history of who killed the Kyoto protocol is still up for debate. I’m of the opinion that the death of the Kyoto protocol and all subsequent agreements rests in one bad actor, the USA. There is not a historic consensus about this, and you’ll find historic accounts that disagree with this (or more likely you’ll find historians putting less importance on the Kyoto protocol than I do). I’m pushing what I believe is the most accurate—or rather the most relevant—narrative of history here.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Complaining about someone saying they aren't committing to do something while they generally do that thing doesn't seem like a good complaint. Diplomacy has a lot of moving parts.