4 ms·

Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems. Exactly why should we reward

Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems. Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis? Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?

aurareturn 2y ago
So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact? It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
- wtcactus 2y ago
  The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst. Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
  - igorkraw 2y ago
    ...by what theory of justice is CO2 per land area just? You didn't will your birthplace. I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
    - wtcactus 2y ago
      By the justice of keeping the planet from going above what its natural resources can replenish. Which, is actually the all excuse being given to take money from some people to give to other: saving the planet. Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them. I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
- exe34 2y ago
  > they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?
  - maccard 2y ago
    It will tank their economies, which is why we’re paying them, basically,
    - exe34 2y ago
      what will happen is that we'll pay them and they will simply sell their labour to whoever else will buy it and still burn up the same resources/cause pollution/realease co2. It's like when we pay poachers not to kill elephants - they take the money and still sell the tusks.
mrphoebs 2y ago
This sounds like someone standing on a sinking ship asking why everyone onboard needs to be given their share of available tools to help plug the leaks, when those tools could be used to create surplus for those having tools.

aurareturn 2y ago

So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact? It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.

wtcactus 2y ago
The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst. Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
- igorkraw 2y ago
  ...by what theory of justice is CO2 per land area just? You didn't will your birthplace. I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    By the justice of keeping the planet from going above what its natural resources can replenish. Which, is actually the all excuse being given to take money from some people to give to other: saving the planet. Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them. I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
exe34 2y ago
> they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?
- maccard 2y ago
  It will tank their economies, which is why we’re paying them, basically,
  - exe34 2y ago
    what will happen is that we'll pay them and they will simply sell their labour to whoever else will buy it and still burn up the same resources/cause pollution/realease co2. It's like when we pay poachers not to kill elephants - they take the money and still sell the tusks.

mrphoebs 2y ago

This sounds like someone standing on a sinking ship asking why everyone onboard needs to be given their share of available tools to help plug the leaks, when those tools could be used to create surplus for those having tools.