3 ms·

Why focus on other countries if most CO2 per capita is produced in the US?

leereeves 3y ago
Why focus on CO2 per capita? Total emissions is the measure that affects the climate. The same emissions, spread among more people, would cause the same climate change. And the US only accounts for about 15% of total emissions.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  [flagged]
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Because people have a right to a decent life. You can't demand Chinese and Indian and African people live without power and AC just because they can't afford state of the art power grids, while smugly living off of more than a hundred years of being ~the only CO2 emitters, on which we've built our way of life (and this includes not just the USA but the EEA and a few other rich countries as well - India especially has lower CO2 emissions per capita than any of the self-proclaimed "green" nations in Europe). And note that the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal Money is fungible. Subsidising Chinese power means subsidising its military. Given it’s presently a dictatorship, that’s a dangerous proposition. We should focus on decarbonising ourselves. Once our per-capita emissions are lower than others’, we can show them the way.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      You could in principle stipulate that the aid is only offered as long as no new coal power is being constructed (so maybe just a few strings attached). That would get rid of the option to siphon [too much of] the money for military purposes. Regardless, my point was that there are many options besides war for quite directly reducing other cointries' emissions. There may be second order effects, so I'm not necessarily advocating for it, but there is certainly no reason to say "we've done all we can".

Why focus on CO2 per capita? Total emissions is the measure that affects the climate. The same emissions, spread among more people, would cause the same climate change. And the US only accounts for about 15% of total emissions.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
[flagged]
tsimionescu 3y ago
Because people have a right to a decent life. You can't demand Chinese and Indian and African people live without power and AC just because they can't afford state of the art power grids, while smugly living off of more than a hundred years of being ~the only CO2 emitters, on which we've built our way of life (and this includes not just the USA but the EEA and a few other rich countries as well - India especially has lower CO2 emissions per capita than any of the self-proclaimed "green" nations in Europe). And note that the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal Money is fungible. Subsidising Chinese power means subsidising its military. Given it’s presently a dictatorship, that’s a dangerous proposition. We should focus on decarbonising ourselves. Once our per-capita emissions are lower than others’, we can show them the way.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    You could in principle stipulate that the aid is only offered as long as no new coal power is being constructed (so maybe just a few strings attached). That would get rid of the option to siphon [too much of] the money for military purposes. Regardless, my point was that there are many options besides war for quite directly reducing other cointries' emissions. There may be second order effects, so I'm not necessarily advocating for it, but there is certainly no reason to say "we've done all we can".