4 ms·
This kind of extreme "we may as well tear down civilisation" is an unhelpful and paralysing response to climate change. Even if we did NOTHING until 2050 (whic
by iamthemonster 3y ago
This kind of extreme "we may as well tear down civilisation" is an unhelpful and paralysing response to climate change. Even if we did NOTHING until 2050 (which is itself an absurd extreme, given that solar+wind+storage now achieves a lower levelized cost of electricity than any other source) then the whole world could afford to live with the CO2 emissions per capita of Brazil or Indonesia, or in other words a 48% reduction from what France emits per capita, without exceeding 1.5 C of warming.
What we can't afford is the absurdly inflated per capita emissions of Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The UK is now emitting less per capita than they did in 1879 and emissions have fallen 60% since 1970. If they were to fall another 47% then they'd be compatible with 15 C.
Climate change is essentially a problem resulting from overconsumption by the rich. The bottom 50% of the world aren't actually causing any particular climate change problem.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jiriknesl 3y agoYes, but the bottom 50% of the world want to live like the top 50% no matter what will it do to the climate.
- defrost 3y agoNot all of them by any means - many in the global south are all too aware of the external costs of first world consumption in a very direct in their face way that eludes the privileged few. You put forward a poor argument against positive change, it smacks of "if we don't burn through fossil fuels first they will". It's a lazy defeatist justification for not making any effort to change.
- momdad420 3y ago[dead]
- solumunus 3y ago> The UK is now emitting less per capita than they did in 1879 and emissions have fallen 60% since 1970. This is largely because industry has been gutted in the UK, the emissions for the UK population is simply occurring in other countries. Our green efforts have been better than many countries, but that’s not what has driven this large decline in emissions.
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> but that’s not what has driven this large decline in emissions Perhaps since 1879, but for the past 30-40 years the largest driver in co2 reduction has been due to actual reduction in (trade adjusted) consumption (40%) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&country=~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
- iamthemonster 3y agothis tired trope won't die in the face of facts. https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 34% of the emissions due to UK economic activity are occurring in other countries - it's not what has driven this large decline in emissions.
- solumunus 3y agoFair enough. My apologies for being a parrot.