3 ms·

I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. If USA reduces emissions but others

I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. If USA reduces emissions but others don’t, well we all share the same atmosphere so… But similar to your angle, I’ve wondered if the climate change messaging is secretly targeted towards resource depletion. If USA switches off oil and oil runs out, who cares if others didn’t switch? But people have a hard time processing “going to run out in 50 years” as a crisis, so instead we get an apocalypse angle, I suppose because humans love the apocalypse (see: various religions).

anonymous_user9 7d ago
The USA is far wealthier, uses more carbon per-person, and is responsible for more historical emissions than China or India. We have an obligation to reduce our gluttony before asking others to go without.
- hyperlinerapp 7d ago
  What have you done to reduce your gluttony?
- MiroslavPokorny 6d ago
  The USA is not wealthy, some people and corporations are wealthy, most people are not. BIG difference. I like to think of holidays and work / life balance as a measure of wealth. Rich people can take time away from work because they can afford it. If you need to work lots of hours and barely can have a few days off then you arent wealthy. Let me ask again, if you need to work 2 - 3 jobs are you wealthy ? If you can only take a weeks worth of holidays in a good year are you wealthy ?
dyauspitr 7d ago
China and India have very, very low per capita emissions. They are also the countries working the hardest and fastest at installing renewable energy.
defrost 7d ago
> I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough. Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis. The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:- * of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ... * the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy. My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?). The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.
- ipaddr 7d ago
  In the 60s/70s they had the world is going into another ice age scare. Based on historical patterns we are in a cooling phase based on Milankovitch cycles. A long slow cooling phase going into another ice age. You can't blame the Koch brothers.
  - defrost 7d ago
    > they had the world is going into another ice age scare. They did, didn't they! Not in the bulk of scientific discussion though, just in media outlets, broadsheets, opinion columns, etc. It does rather sound like somebody bought into the Koch / Heartland propaganda stream whole heartedly. Hopefully commenters can bring up "the little ice age" et al. so we can all play denialist talking point bingo.
    - 7d ago
stubish 7d ago
Messaging over here does not ignore that. A big chunk in Australia is about stopping exports of oil and coal, or at the very least taxing the exports more and making it more expensive. You might have to listen to people and organizations actually concerned though, rather than politicians intent on doing the bare minimum to capture the climate vote.

anonymous_user9 7d ago

The USA is far wealthier, uses more carbon per-person, and is responsible for more historical emissions than China or India. We have an obligation to reduce our gluttony before asking others to go without.

hyperlinerapp 7d ago
What have you done to reduce your gluttony?
MiroslavPokorny 6d ago
The USA is not wealthy, some people and corporations are wealthy, most people are not. BIG difference. I like to think of holidays and work / life balance as a measure of wealth. Rich people can take time away from work because they can afford it. If you need to work lots of hours and barely can have a few days off then you arent wealthy. Let me ask again, if you need to work 2 - 3 jobs are you wealthy ? If you can only take a weeks worth of holidays in a good year are you wealthy ?

dyauspitr 7d ago

China and India have very, very low per capita emissions. They are also the countries working the hardest and fastest at installing renewable energy.

defrost 7d ago

> I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India. It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough. Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis. The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:- * of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ... * the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy. My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?). The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.

ipaddr 7d ago
In the 60s/70s they had the world is going into another ice age scare. Based on historical patterns we are in a cooling phase based on Milankovitch cycles. A long slow cooling phase going into another ice age. You can't blame the Koch brothers.
- defrost 7d ago
  > they had the world is going into another ice age scare. They did, didn't they! Not in the bulk of scientific discussion though, just in media outlets, broadsheets, opinion columns, etc. It does rather sound like somebody bought into the Koch / Heartland propaganda stream whole heartedly. Hopefully commenters can bring up "the little ice age" et al. so we can all play denialist talking point bingo.
  - 7d ago

stubish 7d ago

Messaging over here does not ignore that. A big chunk in Australia is about stopping exports of oil and coal, or at the very least taxing the exports more and making it more expensive. You might have to listen to people and organizations actually concerned though, rather than politicians intent on doing the bare minimum to capture the climate vote.