4 ms·
What? Absolutely question it. Let me know if you find an answer that’s significantly more believable than, “trying to balance local quality of life, long term e
by ethanbond 3y ago
What? Absolutely question it. Let me know if you find an answer that’s significantly more believable than, “trying to balance local quality of life, long term environmental and economic viability, and short term economic prosperity and political stability.”
If you have a different balance to strike that you think is significantly and obviously better, I’m sure the whole world is interested in hearing it.
- dotnet00 3y agoHe was being sarcastic.
- ethanbond 3y agoI’m aware. The implication of the sarcasm is there’s no good reason China and western countries have different standards, so that’s what I was addressing.
- lupusreal 3y agoWe share the same planet, so we need to share the same environmental standards. The self-touted "world's oldest civilization" no less than the rest.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt’s a great ideal, but there are interests other than purely environmental (or purely “fairness”) that must be taken into account as a matter of sheer necessity.
- lupusreal 3y agoYou appealed to fairness, not me.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt’d be easier to have productive conversations if you just plainly stated your position on the topic at hand, if you have one.
- lupusreal 3y agoDid I not? > We share the same planet, so we need to share the same environmental standards All of the excuses to hold China to a different standard are horse shit. Is that stated plainly enough for you?
- ethanbond 3y agoHuh, so now I’m confused as to how you claim not to be invoking fairness
- flir 3y agoThey're aiming to hit net zero before 2060. It's.... ambitious (which I use here as a synonym for unlikely). USA and EU are aiming for 2050. Will anybody meet their goals? The planet is the ultimate Commons. Personally, I think we're boned.