2 ms·
> The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too. In this case, yes, you can. US, EU became d
by __rito__ 2y ago
> The problem with cumulative data is that you can't justify your wrongdoing just because someone else did it too.
In this case, yes, you can.
US, EU became developed by polluting first at the cost of the rest of the world, and now can't simply morally tell India, China to remain poor and undeveloped because that might harm the environment.
You should also keep in mind that, US/EU's manufacture is done in China and other countries in Asia, and when you factor in consumption as well as production, even today, US/EU will fair very poorly.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThis ignores the progress of technology and available options.
- __rito__ 2y agoWho will pay for it? Will countries with a head start, who got rich by harming the environment- subsidize, say, infrastructure for environment friendly steel processing in Indian plants? Or will US/UK taxpayer pay for EV subsidies for Indian people? No, Right?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIm saying the costs and options are differnt now than in the 1900s
- OptionOfT 2y agoSo a company A pollutes a river, we all learn about the downsides of dumping chemical X into the water and regulate it to 1/100s of what was done. Now company B comes along, and they are allowed to pollute the river way above what is now accepted as OK, but because company A did so, it's allowed?
- __rito__ 2y agoCompanies are different from people. Very poor analogy. A better one would be a cities or provinces. And, yes, I believe every city should be given the chance to develop at the risk of short term harm to the environment. People from City B don't deserve to remain poor just because City A had a head-start and polluted the river first. Ideal scenario would be City/State A getting heavily taxed to subsidize City/State B's investment in renewables, people's education and healthcare, rehabilitation of people to other sectors, etc. Would you agree to taxing US and UK each 500-700 billion dollars each year and the money flow to India so that India closes all coal plants and citizens get 90% subsidy in electric cars, or to develop environment friendly steel processing? You wouldn’t agree to it. Why would US/UK taxpayer pay for India's infra and people? Right? So, stop virtue and moral signalling from the high tower you are on. Let India and China develop themselves. It's also very poor looking when it comes from UK. They got rich by exploiting India. And now they just can't say- "remain undeveloped because environment".