3 ms·

Slightly off-topic, but I have a brief question: I often see the argument that western emissions matter relatively little because Chinese emissions are much big

Slightly off-topic, but I have a brief question: I often see the argument that western emissions matter relatively little because Chinese emissions are much bigger. But China is essentially the worlds factory right? So its emission is obviously linked to western consumption. Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

jnovek 3y ago
In general this argument doesn’t make a lot of sense — the west can still be generating too much carbon to be sustainable even if China is generating more.
Geisterde 3y ago
Because everything about these arguments lacks a grounded foundation in how the world works. Everyone wants to jump in with zero understanding of economics, behavior, energy, industry, incentives etc. China is the worlds factory, so fun couple facts here: -As the worlds reserve currency with no commodity backing, we sabatoge domestic manufacturing to give other countries like China something to sell us, if we didn't then the world wouldn't have the dollar and we would lose our hegemony as they look for a different trading currency. The world was in balance under the gold standard, because the supply of gold was not limited to any single country. -American industry, like in any wealthy country, would self regulate emmisions (all pollutants actually, not just carbon), provide a better standard of living, and make better use of byproducts (see how advanced hydrocarbon refining actually is, where every possible output is extracted rather than wasting them by burning crude). No one wants to live in a toxic waste dump and historically industries clean themselves up even without government regulation.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
You're understanding but missing a big part: China isn't a factory, it's a country full of people. So there's a lot, for one, the western customers of their production don't decide what they as a sovereign nation regulate as far as emissions, and two, removing those emissions is equatable to starving them to death. We are all someone's customer and someone's producer. So it only makes sense to simplify the analysis and ascribe emissions to where they are emitted. Shuffling blame around doesn't get you anywhere, imagine a man who blamed his farts on his wife's cooking. Emissions from China come from China and emissions from Norway come from Norway, we don't blame the energy customers who buy Norwegian energy for Norwegian emissions, we blame Norway.
- Fraterkes 3y ago
  I don't find this convincing at all. If the producer takes all the responsibility and the consumer none everyone is just incentivized to move their production abroad instead of doing anything constructive. We just need to find a country willing to take all the factories and all the blame, and the rest of the world can call themselves innocent while worldwide emissions stay the same.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    That would never happen, because if you don't produce something for other people you don't have the resources to pay someone to produce things for you. But supposing it did... > We just need to find a country willing to take all the factories and all the blame A country that does this for economic benefit isn't to blame for it's own sovereign decision to do this??? Do we absolve the US as the largest energy producer because they sell to customers elsewhere? Norway? Russia? Why is it that China uniquely gets absolved of it's emissions? It has 1.3 billion people, surely the vast majority of their emissions are for it's own domestic economy?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
UtopiaPunk 3y ago
First, the United States contributes more than its "fair share" of carbon emissions. We have more cars per capita than anyone else, and cars are a major factor contributing to greenhouse gasses (arguably the single biggest factor). Second the lifestyle of individual Americans is, on average, much more energy intensive than other individuals in the world. There's our cars, like I already mentioned, but also the meat-heavy diet we have uses more resources (think of how much land is needed to sustain a cow vs how much grains, beans, or veggies the same land plot of land could produce), and the relatively large and single family homes many of us have take more energy to heat and cool. The very wealthiest Americans go much further and are huge contributers to climate change (privates jets, multiple large houses, yachts, private golf land, etc). Third, your point that western nations shift pollution to other countries is correct. If a state or nation enacts strict rules about industrial pollution, and a company decides to move their factories to another country with less regulation to save money, then there has been no reduction in emissions! But a country gets to claim they are clean, while their corporations continue to make profits and their consumers continue enjoy their gadgets that depend on dirty production. I think if we actually prioritized climate change over company profits, laws would be stricter about where a company could construct foreign factories. One other point I'd like to make is that shifting production around like this means that there is more shipping required in order to get raw materials to factories and finished goods to consumers. That also is energy intensive, which mostly means burning fossil fuels.

jnovek 3y ago

In general this argument doesn’t make a lot of sense — the west can still be generating too much carbon to be sustainable even if China is generating more.

Geisterde 3y ago

Because everything about these arguments lacks a grounded foundation in how the world works. Everyone wants to jump in with zero understanding of economics, behavior, energy, industry, incentives etc. China is the worlds factory, so fun couple facts here: -As the worlds reserve currency with no commodity backing, we sabatoge domestic manufacturing to give other countries like China something to sell us, if we didn't then the world wouldn't have the dollar and we would lose our hegemony as they look for a different trading currency. The world was in balance under the gold standard, because the supply of gold was not limited to any single country. -American industry, like in any wealthy country, would self regulate emmisions (all pollutants actually, not just carbon), provide a better standard of living, and make better use of byproducts (see how advanced hydrocarbon refining actually is, where every possible output is extracted rather than wasting them by burning crude). No one wants to live in a toxic waste dump and historically industries clean themselves up even without government regulation.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

You're understanding but missing a big part: China isn't a factory, it's a country full of people. So there's a lot, for one, the western customers of their production don't decide what they as a sovereign nation regulate as far as emissions, and two, removing those emissions is equatable to starving them to death. We are all someone's customer and someone's producer. So it only makes sense to simplify the analysis and ascribe emissions to where they are emitted. Shuffling blame around doesn't get you anywhere, imagine a man who blamed his farts on his wife's cooking. Emissions from China come from China and emissions from Norway come from Norway, we don't blame the energy customers who buy Norwegian energy for Norwegian emissions, we blame Norway.

Fraterkes 3y ago
I don't find this convincing at all. If the producer takes all the responsibility and the consumer none everyone is just incentivized to move their production abroad instead of doing anything constructive. We just need to find a country willing to take all the factories and all the blame, and the rest of the world can call themselves innocent while worldwide emissions stay the same.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  That would never happen, because if you don't produce something for other people you don't have the resources to pay someone to produce things for you. But supposing it did... > We just need to find a country willing to take all the factories and all the blame A country that does this for economic benefit isn't to blame for it's own sovereign decision to do this??? Do we absolve the US as the largest energy producer because they sell to customers elsewhere? Norway? Russia? Why is it that China uniquely gets absolved of it's emissions? It has 1.3 billion people, surely the vast majority of their emissions are for it's own domestic economy?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

UtopiaPunk 3y ago

First, the United States contributes more than its "fair share" of carbon emissions. We have more cars per capita than anyone else, and cars are a major factor contributing to greenhouse gasses (arguably the single biggest factor). Second the lifestyle of individual Americans is, on average, much more energy intensive than other individuals in the world. There's our cars, like I already mentioned, but also the meat-heavy diet we have uses more resources (think of how much land is needed to sustain a cow vs how much grains, beans, or veggies the same land plot of land could produce), and the relatively large and single family homes many of us have take more energy to heat and cool. The very wealthiest Americans go much further and are huge contributers to climate change (privates jets, multiple large houses, yachts, private golf land, etc). Third, your point that western nations shift pollution to other countries is correct. If a state or nation enacts strict rules about industrial pollution, and a company decides to move their factories to another country with less regulation to save money, then there has been no reduction in emissions! But a country gets to claim they are clean, while their corporations continue to make profits and their consumers continue enjoy their gadgets that depend on dirty production. I think if we actually prioritized climate change over company profits, laws would be stricter about where a company could construct foreign factories. One other point I'd like to make is that shifting production around like this means that there is more shipping required in order to get raw materials to factories and finished goods to consumers. That also is energy intensive, which mostly means burning fossil fuels.