5 ms·

I don't think the article addressed one of the most important points: the U.S and EU are only a portion of global emissions. If they're the only ones to serious

I don't think the article addressed one of the most important points: the U.S and EU are only a portion of global emissions. If they're the only ones to seriously contribute to climate change they will essentially be subsidizing the developing world. That's why Trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Should they do it anyway? Maybe, but it seems more likely that the self-interested choice is to give up and focus on making the U.S and EU resilient to climate change. Either way this is fundamentally different from a bank bailout.

Teever 3y ago
> If they're the only ones to seriously contribute to climate change they will essentially be subsidizing the developing world. Or they're finally doing the right thing and fixing the negative externalities of industrialization that they've been passing off to everyone for about a century?
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  No one cares to "do the right thing", but that's not even the problem. The developing world is producing their own externalities now. People won't accept that the developing world is allowed to pollute, while the developed world is not.
staunton 3y ago
Even if you were OK morally with "just ignore the problem and let most of humanity die so long we can keep burning oil", it's not an option in the first place. You just don't get to keep burning oil, one way or another. As long as the pollution isn't stopped, environmental conditions will never stop getting worse and do so at an accelerating pace. You cannot "just become resilient and deal with it" indefinitely. People in the US and Europe also need food and water, for which it's great to be able to work outside without dying and also great to not have never ending droughts, floods and hurricanes.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  What's actually your proposed solution? Nuclear genocide anyone who won't take the same steps as you on climate change? What do you do when China just outright declines to swap all the way to renewables? And when you go down this rabbithole and you go back to pandemic level people-never-traveling and emissions are STILL only down 6%.. what then? Rolling blackouts? No meat ever again? At some point the angry mob will simply correct the situation back to the mean.
  - staunton 3y ago
    China is building quite a lot of solar power. You might want to find a better excuse not to care about the future of humanity.
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      China also restarted several coal plants after rotating blackouts caused some domestic issues. You can replace China with Russia or Venezuela. And it is caring about the future of humanity. You can give up eating meat, dairy, driving, planes and go live in the woods and we may still have the exact same problems. If you want to propose a solution, it's on you to show it works.
      - staunton 3y ago
        > it's on you to show it works. If you just want excuses not to change your lifestyle and effect political change, both of which are required, no amount of "showing" will ever convince you of anything. Do you enjoy saying: "I'm not convinced this will work, so screw everyone, I'm not helping (and thus actively preventing a solution)"? The solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and this will happen one way or another. Maybe it happens through international cooperation following political initiatives, maybe it happens once civilization collapses across the globe. I have a strong preference for the first scenario. The vibe I get from you (maybe by mistake?) is that you just don't care very much. The way how to get there is abundantly clear. It just sounds so inconvenient. So, you ask, can't we just blame someone else and hope it won't be that bad after all? That kind of thinking has never solved any problem. Predicting the future to say "this won't work anyway" is incredible arrogance. Noone knows what will happen. People have abolished slavery and monarchies before.

Teever 3y ago

> If they're the only ones to seriously contribute to climate change they will essentially be subsidizing the developing world. Or they're finally doing the right thing and fixing the negative externalities of industrialization that they've been passing off to everyone for about a century?

zeroCalories 3y ago
No one cares to "do the right thing", but that's not even the problem. The developing world is producing their own externalities now. People won't accept that the developing world is allowed to pollute, while the developed world is not.

staunton 3y ago

Even if you were OK morally with "just ignore the problem and let most of humanity die so long we can keep burning oil", it's not an option in the first place. You just don't get to keep burning oil, one way or another. As long as the pollution isn't stopped, environmental conditions will never stop getting worse and do so at an accelerating pace. You cannot "just become resilient and deal with it" indefinitely. People in the US and Europe also need food and water, for which it's great to be able to work outside without dying and also great to not have never ending droughts, floods and hurricanes.

vorpalhex 3y ago
What's actually your proposed solution? Nuclear genocide anyone who won't take the same steps as you on climate change? What do you do when China just outright declines to swap all the way to renewables? And when you go down this rabbithole and you go back to pandemic level people-never-traveling and emissions are STILL only down 6%.. what then? Rolling blackouts? No meat ever again? At some point the angry mob will simply correct the situation back to the mean.
- staunton 3y ago
  China is building quite a lot of solar power. You might want to find a better excuse not to care about the future of humanity.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    China also restarted several coal plants after rotating blackouts caused some domestic issues. You can replace China with Russia or Venezuela. And it is caring about the future of humanity. You can give up eating meat, dairy, driving, planes and go live in the woods and we may still have the exact same problems. If you want to propose a solution, it's on you to show it works.
    - staunton 3y ago
      > it's on you to show it works. If you just want excuses not to change your lifestyle and effect political change, both of which are required, no amount of "showing" will ever convince you of anything. Do you enjoy saying: "I'm not convinced this will work, so screw everyone, I'm not helping (and thus actively preventing a solution)"? The solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and this will happen one way or another. Maybe it happens through international cooperation following political initiatives, maybe it happens once civilization collapses across the globe. I have a strong preference for the first scenario. The vibe I get from you (maybe by mistake?) is that you just don't care very much. The way how to get there is abundantly clear. It just sounds so inconvenient. So, you ask, can't we just blame someone else and hope it won't be that bad after all? That kind of thinking has never solved any problem. Predicting the future to say "this won't work anyway" is incredible arrogance. Noone knows what will happen. People have abolished slavery and monarchies before.