5 ms·

I'm not sure how many want to hear this, but western deinstustrailization and shifting of domestic production to imports makes most of this irrelevant. In 20yr

I'm not sure how many want to hear this, but western deinstustrailization and shifting of domestic production to imports makes most of this irrelevant. In 20yr nigeria alone will have a larger population than the whole of europe, and is industrializing. Total carbon consumption by westerns is always rising due to shifting it to imports; and in any case, we're only 1bn people. Actually stopping carbon consumption by westerns rising is a "war footing" economic programme; and actually stopping climate change requires changing the industrialization trajectories of many non-western countries. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

akira2501 3y ago
> makes most of this irrelevant. We do export a ridiculous amount of food and green technologies. > and actually stopping climate change requires changing the industrialization trajectories of many non-western countries. So.. colonialism by a new name. I had really hoped we grew out of this by now.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Industrial emission of CO2 is the main factor; there's not much deindustrializing economies can do beyond deindustrailizing. And, of course, pat themselves on the back as they do so. There's zero economic, social or political cost to western policies at the moment and they arent reducing CO2 emissions. It's very much "green theatre". The goal is to stop the actual levels of Co2 ppm from rising. This is all fairly meaningless; it does nothing to change the actual outcome.
  - sgu999 3y ago
    In particular when more of that green energy is going to be used on bigger EVs, more aircon, more screens, etc. Western countries are unlikely to reduce their overall energy demand, in which we should account for the one necessary for producing the imported goods. That said, opening solar farms to shut down coal plants is a net good regardless.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > The goal is to stop the actual levels of Co2 ppm from rising At all? There's no acceptable ceiling here? We're just going to slam the door on the entirety of Africa yet again?
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      Up to you, do you care about global Co2 levels or not? The rate of Co2 emissions is itself increasing y-o-y. We're still accelerating.
      - akira2501 3y ago
        I care to know what a reasonable upper limit is. It is the height of western arrogance to say "it's currently 400ppm, we already got ours, and so it cannot go /any/ higher, which means everyone else has to pay for out past extravagance." If we're truly that concerned about it, then we need to get to work on carbon capture and conversion, and do our part to be carbon negative so that non industrialized areas of the world have an opportunity to catch up. And this isn't just about industrialization, it's about quality of life, it's about longevity, it's about wealth. Pretending that CO2 is the only concern leaves everything else on the floor. And without any diplomacy, this is the kind of policy that starts wars. Up to you if you actually want to solve the problem in the long term or not. So, again, what's an acceptable upper limit?
        mjburgess 3y ago
        I dont know. i dont care very much. the question is just the one you have proposed, in your colonialist defence of the colonies.. yes, indeed, it lies with what we believe of them in otherwords, our own deindustrialization is irrelevant
flakeoil 3y ago
If solar and wind can be used economically in the west then of course developing countries can also use them. In fact, most of Africa has more sun-hours than typical western countries. Solar and wind can also be used where there are poorly developed electricity grids as it can be produced where it is consumed.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  The goal is to stop co2 ppm from rising in the atmosphere beyond dangerous levels, these arent policies to stop that happening, they're polices to replace minor sources of co2 emission (electricity use in developing countries). I mean if people want to believe all this matters, so be it; but it doesnt. The goal isnt to replace coal power stations with solar ones, it's to stop co2 levels from rising. They're rising 20ppm/decade, iirc, and none of this does anything to change that. maybe it stops them from rising faster than they would have done.

akira2501 3y ago

> makes most of this irrelevant. We do export a ridiculous amount of food and green technologies. > and actually stopping climate change requires changing the industrialization trajectories of many non-western countries. So.. colonialism by a new name. I had really hoped we grew out of this by now.

mjburgess 3y ago
Industrial emission of CO2 is the main factor; there's not much deindustrializing economies can do beyond deindustrailizing. And, of course, pat themselves on the back as they do so. There's zero economic, social or political cost to western policies at the moment and they arent reducing CO2 emissions. It's very much "green theatre". The goal is to stop the actual levels of Co2 ppm from rising. This is all fairly meaningless; it does nothing to change the actual outcome.
- sgu999 3y ago
  In particular when more of that green energy is going to be used on bigger EVs, more aircon, more screens, etc. Western countries are unlikely to reduce their overall energy demand, in which we should account for the one necessary for producing the imported goods. That said, opening solar farms to shut down coal plants is a net good regardless.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > The goal is to stop the actual levels of Co2 ppm from rising At all? There's no acceptable ceiling here? We're just going to slam the door on the entirety of Africa yet again?
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Up to you, do you care about global Co2 levels or not? The rate of Co2 emissions is itself increasing y-o-y. We're still accelerating.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      I care to know what a reasonable upper limit is. It is the height of western arrogance to say "it's currently 400ppm, we already got ours, and so it cannot go /any/ higher, which means everyone else has to pay for out past extravagance." If we're truly that concerned about it, then we need to get to work on carbon capture and conversion, and do our part to be carbon negative so that non industrialized areas of the world have an opportunity to catch up. And this isn't just about industrialization, it's about quality of life, it's about longevity, it's about wealth. Pretending that CO2 is the only concern leaves everything else on the floor. And without any diplomacy, this is the kind of policy that starts wars. Up to you if you actually want to solve the problem in the long term or not. So, again, what's an acceptable upper limit?
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        I dont know. i dont care very much. the question is just the one you have proposed, in your colonialist defence of the colonies.. yes, indeed, it lies with what we believe of them in otherwords, our own deindustrialization is irrelevant

flakeoil 3y ago

If solar and wind can be used economically in the west then of course developing countries can also use them. In fact, most of Africa has more sun-hours than typical western countries. Solar and wind can also be used where there are poorly developed electricity grids as it can be produced where it is consumed.

mjburgess 3y ago
The goal is to stop co2 ppm from rising in the atmosphere beyond dangerous levels, these arent policies to stop that happening, they're polices to replace minor sources of co2 emission (electricity use in developing countries). I mean if people want to believe all this matters, so be it; but it doesnt. The goal isnt to replace coal power stations with solar ones, it's to stop co2 levels from rising. They're rising 20ppm/decade, iirc, and none of this does anything to change that. maybe it stops them from rising faster than they would have done.