3 ms·

> It seems like largely people just don't care about the environment on a "general global" scale. The issue is not really people. The worst emitters are out of

> It seems like largely people just don't care about the environment on a "general global" scale. The issue is not really people. The worst emitters are out of reach from us. It’s good to make people more conscious of their environmental impact but what good does it really make when what is saved is a minute of energy production by the average Chinese coal power plant.

sokoloff 3y ago
Most of the emissions are people-related: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... People who want food, transportation, electricity, heat, concrete, etc.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  That’s a sector breakdown of emission. That doesn’t address my point at all. Everything human is people related at some point or we wouldn’t be doing it. As you can see the most emitting sector is energy production. That’s mostly driven by countries using coal as energy source and countries with significant oil and gas reserves. It is a lever at the strategical and political level. Same with industry where gains are mostly achieved through regulation. Construction is direly in need of innovation regarding its emission but unless you want people to sleep in the street remains somewhat unavoidable. That leaves agricultures where people have a huge role to play by consuming less meat and somewhat transportation (even if that’s actually extremely linked to the offer of effective public transport). For the rest and as much as I would like to believe in it, most actions I see people doing are actually fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I’m a bit annoyed by it because it somehow lulls people into thinking they are doing something for the problem while the actual issues stay unaddressed.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    May be worth noting that the US burns more coal today than China on a per-capita basis.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      Per-capita is not an interesting number here. We need to curb absolute emission and China doesn't get a pass because they pushed their population to 1.4 billions for hegemonist reasons. Not that the US shouldn't also stop burning coal, mind you. Same with Germany.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        At the same time, we don’t get to talk down to or look down upon other countries who are doing less damage per-capita even as they (quite reasonably and entirely expectedly) seek to improve the living conditions of their people, even while making products (and the associated emissions) for our people to buy and outsource emissions counting to another country. We’ve been burning coal for hundreds of years and around 150 to make electricity. To suggest that others should do much less than we did and continue to do is, IMO, unreasonable to the point of being absurd.
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        > We’ve been burning coal for hundreds of years and around 150 to make electricity. To suggest that others should do much less than we did and continue to do is, IMO, unreasonable to the point of being absurd. Well then I’m being absurd because we are sharing the same planet and the fact remains that they are stupidly burning coal. The fact that they are late to the party doesn’t magically make it stop affecting all of us. There is no place for virtue signalling here. At some point, some serious pressure will have to be put on countries which are not sorting their shit out or we will all pay the price.
GreenWatermelon 3y ago
The average chinese power plant powers a factory that produces products demanded by western populations. A carbon tax could be imposed on companies selling products made using manufacturing processes that result in emitting CO2, regardless of where it's manufactured e.g. American company C developed Phone P, sent it to china for cheap manufacturing costs, and sells ot to US people. C should pay a carbon tax to be allowed to sell that device. Whether the company will pass that tax on the consumer or not or irrelevant.

sokoloff 3y ago

Most of the emissions are people-related: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... People who want food, transportation, electricity, heat, concrete, etc.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
That’s a sector breakdown of emission. That doesn’t address my point at all. Everything human is people related at some point or we wouldn’t be doing it. As you can see the most emitting sector is energy production. That’s mostly driven by countries using coal as energy source and countries with significant oil and gas reserves. It is a lever at the strategical and political level. Same with industry where gains are mostly achieved through regulation. Construction is direly in need of innovation regarding its emission but unless you want people to sleep in the street remains somewhat unavoidable. That leaves agricultures where people have a huge role to play by consuming less meat and somewhat transportation (even if that’s actually extremely linked to the offer of effective public transport). For the rest and as much as I would like to believe in it, most actions I see people doing are actually fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I’m a bit annoyed by it because it somehow lulls people into thinking they are doing something for the problem while the actual issues stay unaddressed.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  May be worth noting that the US burns more coal today than China on a per-capita basis.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    Per-capita is not an interesting number here. We need to curb absolute emission and China doesn't get a pass because they pushed their population to 1.4 billions for hegemonist reasons. Not that the US shouldn't also stop burning coal, mind you. Same with Germany.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      At the same time, we don’t get to talk down to or look down upon other countries who are doing less damage per-capita even as they (quite reasonably and entirely expectedly) seek to improve the living conditions of their people, even while making products (and the associated emissions) for our people to buy and outsource emissions counting to another country. We’ve been burning coal for hundreds of years and around 150 to make electricity. To suggest that others should do much less than we did and continue to do is, IMO, unreasonable to the point of being absurd.
      - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        > We’ve been burning coal for hundreds of years and around 150 to make electricity. To suggest that others should do much less than we did and continue to do is, IMO, unreasonable to the point of being absurd. Well then I’m being absurd because we are sharing the same planet and the fact remains that they are stupidly burning coal. The fact that they are late to the party doesn’t magically make it stop affecting all of us. There is no place for virtue signalling here. At some point, some serious pressure will have to be put on countries which are not sorting their shit out or we will all pay the price.

GreenWatermelon 3y ago

The average chinese power plant powers a factory that produces products demanded by western populations. A carbon tax could be imposed on companies selling products made using manufacturing processes that result in emitting CO2, regardless of where it's manufactured e.g. American company C developed Phone P, sent it to china for cheap manufacturing costs, and sells ot to US people. C should pay a carbon tax to be allowed to sell that device. Whether the company will pass that tax on the consumer or not or irrelevant.