4 ms·
"they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India" Is that your gut feeling, or do you have some numbers to back that up?
by hutzlibu 3y ago
"they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India"
Is that your gut feeling, or do you have some numbers to back that up?
Also China is investing quite heavily in renewables and one can argue that they started doing so, because the demand (through subsidies in the beginning) for them exploded, so then the prices dropped, so further demand happened - so now there is an industry in china that spits them out by the masses. Btw. it is a really comfortable position to say "look at china", how much they consume - when they mainly produce OUR stuff we then consume. One has to look at the CO2 consumption per human - (see here for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions). How can we expect the low income world to lead with industry change, when we still consume way more per citizen, than they do?
- MrBuddyCasino 3y agoI'm all for leading by example, but if you accept the premise that climate change is an existential risk, how do you explain the actions of the German green party that insisted on shutting down the last remaining nuclear power plants, even as Nordstream was blown up? The LNG that we currently consumes as a substitute for the Russian gas is emitting even more greenhouse gases than burning lignite btw, because the US shale gas extraction is extremely dirty [0]. You can not hold both positions at the same time: either climate change is existential, in which case we should do everything that we can to stop it, or shut down nuclear, stop using relatively clean Russian gas and instead increase emissions to new levels by burning coal and "dirty" gas. This tells me there is more to it than the surface-level discussion, possibly a religious doomsday movement that purity-spiraled out of control. [0] https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG...
- hutzlibu 3y ago"how do you explain the actions of the German green party that insisted on shutting down the last remaining nuclear power plants" Politics and fear for radiation, Chernobyl, Fukoshima etc? The whole history of the green party with its roots in anti nuclear? I don't think political parties are the right metric when looking for rationality.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y agoYou will find that "rationality" as people today understand it is a treacherous path as well. One mistake (among others) is to assume that The Science is independent of political power structures, and can thus serve as an independent guiding star for what should be done, when the reality is that it is the other way around: science is used as a post-hoc justification for the things people wanted to do anyway. Climate change (note how it is not just "global warming" anymore) is just one example among many.
- hutzlibu 3y agoYou mean people wanted to get rid of stinky coal and polluting noisy cars in the city and therefore invented climate change? If true, this would be my favourite conspiracy ever. But actually, I rather believe the scientific consensus, which is not 100% made up by scientists hold in chains by evil corporations and governments, but rather contains a quite diverse bunch. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- MrBuddyCasino 3y agoThis has to be one of the laziest strawmen replies I ever got.
- hutzlibu 3y agoWell and your post was probably one of the longest for saying "climate change is a hoax". At least this is how it came across, or did you have any other message?