3 ms·

They are missing in large part because the participants in the discussions are typically from the west and have little to no agency in china or India. Addition

They are missing in large part because the participants in the discussions are typically from the west and have little to no agency in china or India. Additionally trying to point blaming fingers at these distant countries is typically easily identified as a tactic to do less oneself and to shift blame. Additionally it is often not brought up because (and i hope you don't mind me picking the more extreme comparison to be made.) India has a co2 output per capita about 1/10th of that of the US which should hint at the fact that the US since it's the more developed country has boatloads of low hanging fruit it could tackle. Especially since it outputs more than double per capita than let's say the EU. Additionally it is often not brought up because after decades of outputting comparatively gargantuan amounts of co2 having those large emitters then pointing at countries not developed to the same standard and denied much of the same easy source of energy influential in achieving said development is a surefire way to get those countries to not give a single fuck and consequentially just contributes to screwing us all. Additionally it is often not brought up because trying to draw it down to singular nationstate comparisons as if they're individual actors in all this aside from being absolutely useless and obviously dishonest innevitably leads to a comparison to some tiny petrostate which despite putting out loads of co2 and not giving a fuck still looks better in the dishonest comparison than the likes of the US.

graemep 3y ago
None of those arguments hold up. Those countries do have agency, they do participate in discussions and sign treaties, they just keep increasing CO2 emissions. Per capita does not matter, totals do. Would it make a difference if Switzerland stopped emitting CO2 completely and no one else changes anything. You cannot change the past, you can change the future. Unless those countries follow the same standards as the west (and very, very soon) then CO2 emissions are going to keep rising. Right now China has single companies that emit more CO2 that the whole of the UK, they are building coal powered power stations, and generally not giving a fuck. They see advantages in arctic ice melting and temperatures rising, as does Russia. It is reasonable to say they cannot be expected to follow higher standards because they west did not, BUT only if you are willing to accept that CO2 emissions will therefore keep rising.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  > Per capita does not matter, totals do. I have no idea how this point gets brought up every time when it is so obvious to refute. We, as a civilizations, have some amount of CO2 per year that we can emit without catastrophic consequences. You are basically arguing the US/European citizens should be allowed to emit a completely outsized proportion of that CO2 budget, which to me is very clearly unethical. Also consider: 1) China splits into 10 individual states- suddenly their emissions don't matter anymore using your accounting?! 2) It seems absoutely obvious to me that reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount is MUCH easier if you start from a higher baseline: Saving a ton of CO2/year for a US family basically means "fewer individual trips on the second car the family owns". For an Indian rice farmer to save one ton means "no heating during winter". It seems to me that you think "the west" is some kind of role model in CO2 emissions, and the onus is on developing nations to "follow the same standards"-- but that is complete bullshit; "the west" (especially the US) is doing much WORSE than basically every developing nation (which becomes very clear from CO2/capita numbers).
  - wnkrshm 3y ago
    Adding to those arguments, you can include exports/imports into the CO2 emission estimation and suddenly one sees that a good part of China's CO2 emissions are for products that are exported to the EU and the US (Edit: see e.g. [0]). So shifting high-emission production to China and then pointing the finger at China for products we consume is kinda dishonest. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...
- modo_mario 3y ago
  >Per capita does not matter, totals do. Would it make a difference if Switzerland stopped emitting CO2 completely and no one else changes anything. And here comes the innevitable counter blaming finger: Stop emitting so much then. Learn from idk ... Oman. The funny thing is that this litteral petrostate doesn't emit much more per capita than the US either.

graemep 3y ago

None of those arguments hold up. Those countries do have agency, they do participate in discussions and sign treaties, they just keep increasing CO2 emissions. Per capita does not matter, totals do. Would it make a difference if Switzerland stopped emitting CO2 completely and no one else changes anything. You cannot change the past, you can change the future. Unless those countries follow the same standards as the west (and very, very soon) then CO2 emissions are going to keep rising. Right now China has single companies that emit more CO2 that the whole of the UK, they are building coal powered power stations, and generally not giving a fuck. They see advantages in arctic ice melting and temperatures rising, as does Russia. It is reasonable to say they cannot be expected to follow higher standards because they west did not, BUT only if you are willing to accept that CO2 emissions will therefore keep rising.

myrmidon 3y ago
> Per capita does not matter, totals do. I have no idea how this point gets brought up every time when it is so obvious to refute. We, as a civilizations, have some amount of CO2 per year that we can emit without catastrophic consequences. You are basically arguing the US/European citizens should be allowed to emit a completely outsized proportion of that CO2 budget, which to me is very clearly unethical. Also consider: 1) China splits into 10 individual states- suddenly their emissions don't matter anymore using your accounting?! 2) It seems absoutely obvious to me that reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount is MUCH easier if you start from a higher baseline: Saving a ton of CO2/year for a US family basically means "fewer individual trips on the second car the family owns". For an Indian rice farmer to save one ton means "no heating during winter". It seems to me that you think "the west" is some kind of role model in CO2 emissions, and the onus is on developing nations to "follow the same standards"-- but that is complete bullshit; "the west" (especially the US) is doing much WORSE than basically every developing nation (which becomes very clear from CO2/capita numbers).
- wnkrshm 3y ago
  Adding to those arguments, you can include exports/imports into the CO2 emission estimation and suddenly one sees that a good part of China's CO2 emissions are for products that are exported to the EU and the US (Edit: see e.g. [0]). So shifting high-emission production to China and then pointing the finger at China for products we consume is kinda dishonest. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...
modo_mario 3y ago
>Per capita does not matter, totals do. Would it make a difference if Switzerland stopped emitting CO2 completely and no one else changes anything. And here comes the innevitable counter blaming finger: Stop emitting so much then. Learn from idk ... Oman. The funny thing is that this litteral petrostate doesn't emit much more per capita than the US either.