3 ms·
The problem is, no amount of climate policies in the West is going to offset burning fuel in the developing counties. It’s a global phenomenon and addressing it
by f6v 7mo ago
The problem is, no amount of climate policies in the West is going to offset burning fuel in the developing counties. It’s a global phenomenon and addressing it locally is futile. That, and you don’t have the luxury of green solutions when energy prices were going through the roof.
- rounce 7mo agoSurely it's better to be more reliant on domestically/locally produced wind and solar when oil and gas production by 3rd party countries is plummeting?
- hackyhacky 7mo ago> addressing it locally is futile. Imagine what could be accomplished if Americans used their global influence to affect global change on climate issues with the same zeal that they pursue manipulative trade deals.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- wolttam 7mo agoSomeone needs to set the example and be the model?
- nyeah 7mo agoNice take on the trolley problem. "No amount of pulling the emergency brakes is going to prevent passengers from dying when this runaway train finally crashes. So let's be responsible adults and put the pedal to the metal."
- triceratops 7mo agoSo pay for developing countries to go green. If they can get free solar energy they won't spend their money on gas.
- acdha 7mo agoThis is not only wrong but you are bending over backwards to maintain the state of ignorance which makes it possible to say that. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere did not come from developing countries, and every reduction buys more time to deal with the problem so, yes, local measures matter: as an example, the U.S. transportation sector is so carbon intensive that getting our average efficiency up will reduce global emissions by more than entire other countries produce. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1118464/transportation-co2-emissions-in-the-us-energy-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1118464/transportation-c... shows the American trend, then look at which other countries that’s similar to assuming we electrify a given fraction of the transportation sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... This is even more wrong when you look at how Africa is electrifying. Unlike the United States, China continued to invest in solar panel production and so they’re now the cheapest option for electrical power for millions of people since solar panels run for decades and don’t require trucking diesel fuel around or building out power grids. Investments in batteries are having the same cycle: richer countries have the research universities and product development but then anyone can buy the product. https://apnews.com/article/solar-energy-china-imports-battery-cbf5477a563219881b5db52ae16f7bd6 https://apnews.com/article/solar-energy-china-imports-batter... That’s why the fossil fuels spend so much money spreading messages like yours: they grew fat on government subsidies and they need those subsidies to continue or even expand as the basic economics increasingly favor renewables. Trump has to force coal plants to stay open because otherwise the operators would switch to cheaper options.
- f6v 7mo agoOk so the wiki graph shows that annual emissions from the rest of the world are growing and US and EU contribute less and less while others contribute more? What’s the argument you’re making here?
- mcdonje 7mo agoThe graph that shows the US as the #3 CO2 generator after China (#1), and all of Asia except China & India (#2)? The one that shows the US generating about half as much as China despite having less than a third of the population? The one that shows the US's contribution to be more than the continents of Africa, South America, and Oceania combined? Struggling to see how one could look at such a chart and think it's futile for the US to take meaningful action.