2 ms·

Focusing solely on total carbon emissions without considering per capita figures, and only on the present without acknowledging historical responsibility, is bl

Focusing solely on total carbon emissions without considering per capita figures, and only on the present without acknowledging historical responsibility, is blatant discrimination and exploitation of developing countries by the developed world. The European Union has certainly done a lot for environmental protection, but many of its politicians are more concerned with exploiting less developed nations through green barriers, just as they previously did through technology and patents. Don't just focus on reducing emissions; why not consider increasing carbon sinks? A balanced approach is more effective. Learn from China: its increase in forest coverage, its desert reclamation, and the massive development of wind and solar power are all results of decades of relentless effort. Stop the condescending finger-pointing. For example, China is often criticized for its ocean fishing, but critics ignore that its aquaculture production far surpasses its marine capture. How many countries in the world can achieve that? For species that are difficult to farm, they first master artificial breeding to release fry back into the sea, before advancing toward the goal of full-cycle aquaculture. People's well-being and environmental protection must be balanced, not subjected to rigid, one-size-fits-all policies made for the sake of votes.

jemmyw 1y ago
The climate doesn't care about per capita figures and historical responsibility. Besides which, emissions have grown so much since 2000 that historical is kind of moot. Per capita is kind of silly too, all the people in the country I live in could reduce their emissions and we'd still have high per capita because such a large amount of it goes to industry which exports, funnily enough, primarily to China. We should focus on reducing emissions in every place and way possible. Carbon sinks are temporary, and suffer from the problem that they may end up releasing the carbon again in the future. We can't really rely on them for real accounting against emissions. I'm not sure why you've brought ocean fishing into it. But having lots of aquaculture doesn't excuse other behaviours by China or any other fishing nation.
- isluoyu 1y ago
  Ignoring historical and per-capita emissions isn't "pragmatic," it's blame-shifting. You're right to bring up "exported emissions," but you have the direction backward. The primary "carbon transfer" is from China, acting as the world's factory to meet consumer demand in the West. You can't outsource your carbon footprint and then blame the manufacturer. If we're truly going to discard fairness for "maximum efficiency" in emissions reduction, then we should target one of the biggest and easiest sources: diet. Data: Producing 1 kg of beef emits ~60-100 kg of CO₂e. Producing 1 kg of pork emits only ~7-12 kg of CO₂e. Proposal: A global ban on beef and dairy, switching to pork and poultry. The emissions saved by this simple consumer choice would surpass the total efforts of many nations. This proposal sounds absurd, right? It infringes on culture and personal choice. And that is precisely the point: any climate solution that ignores fairness, responsibility, and context is, in itself, absurd. The right to development is a human right.

jemmyw 1y ago

The climate doesn't care about per capita figures and historical responsibility. Besides which, emissions have grown so much since 2000 that historical is kind of moot. Per capita is kind of silly too, all the people in the country I live in could reduce their emissions and we'd still have high per capita because such a large amount of it goes to industry which exports, funnily enough, primarily to China. We should focus on reducing emissions in every place and way possible. Carbon sinks are temporary, and suffer from the problem that they may end up releasing the carbon again in the future. We can't really rely on them for real accounting against emissions. I'm not sure why you've brought ocean fishing into it. But having lots of aquaculture doesn't excuse other behaviours by China or any other fishing nation.

isluoyu 1y ago
Ignoring historical and per-capita emissions isn't "pragmatic," it's blame-shifting. You're right to bring up "exported emissions," but you have the direction backward. The primary "carbon transfer" is from China, acting as the world's factory to meet consumer demand in the West. You can't outsource your carbon footprint and then blame the manufacturer. If we're truly going to discard fairness for "maximum efficiency" in emissions reduction, then we should target one of the biggest and easiest sources: diet. Data: Producing 1 kg of beef emits ~60-100 kg of CO₂e. Producing 1 kg of pork emits only ~7-12 kg of CO₂e. Proposal: A global ban on beef and dairy, switching to pork and poultry. The emissions saved by this simple consumer choice would surpass the total efforts of many nations. This proposal sounds absurd, right? It infringes on culture and personal choice. And that is precisely the point: any climate solution that ignores fairness, responsibility, and context is, in itself, absurd. The right to development is a human right.