I want people to point it out. Not do nothing till they do.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
I want people to point it out. Not do nothing till they do.
I agree, which is why I responded to him with these a few pages ago
Again it's not what I said but use it as a stick to bash my views if it makes you happier.
This thread is another example of it anyway where everyone is like "yeah at least china are doing something about it..damn u.s!" Do you guys have any idea how much investment here goes into making greener offices greener cities or buildings? It is definitely not enough and we need more but it's a slap on the face of people who are working for it here.
China on the other hand couldnt give a feck and you're gonna tell me a spineless document like the paris agreement is proof they do?
Recently they have been cracking down hard on illegal diesel vehicles that emit particles. You get all sorts of benefits for driving an electric car. Almost every newer building that gets built in my city is green certified (or something like that. They hse solar energy minimal water etc). So for people to say China is doing something about it while u.s isnt is a complete joke I'm not even gonna bother arguing if that's your view.
Yeah we aspire to be rising like china ...
But why point it out when the US is twice as bad per capita? If anything China could point to the US and go "Look at those greedy bastards".
Look at rising falling rates. Look at what's being done to counter it. Per capita or not China contributes to a big share of the worlds global warming issue. The cavalier attitude shown by many here and throughout media towards China is sad.
Who is showing a cavalier attitude to them? They obviously need to drastically reduce emissions themselves. The only point anyone is making is that using China as a barometer for the US and going "see we're not so bad compared to them, why should we do anything til they sort themselves out" is fecking idiotic logic that will only help lead to mass extinction.
That's logic you've used not me since I havent said that
It is hardly surprising that China emits such a high level of CO2 because so much of global manufacturering has been 'sub-contacted' from highly developed countries to China.
It is disingenuous to both complain about China while enjoying the benefits of low cost products that are made there.
China has been happy to grow their manufacturering base. But to be able to deliver, they have had to vastly increase their power generation and we are aware of the number of coal fired power stations built.
However, we have also seen the terrible atmospheric pollution affecting their cities. And as a result they are currently leading the world in renewable power generation.
Of course I am appalled at what has happened. But you can't have it both ways.
Then where does it end. If a clean country uses a lot of products made in china which country is to blame
Where did I say "u.s doesnt have to do anything. China first!" No one is addressing china is the point
Climate change is a global emergency. It does not respect borders.
Who is to blame. Human greed.
Human beings think they are somehow above and disconnected from nature.
They (we) are not. We are an intrinsic part of the natural world.
And the bottom line is, there are far too many of us to be able to live sustainably.
Yes they obviously do, being 1.4 billion people and all.
What do you mean by attitude towards China? I don't give a shit whether it's one country or the other. I'm just calling out your bad points. Looking at total emissions without taking anything else into account only serves to muddy the waters.
That is heavily implied in saying "someone has to adress these nations first".
Well yes I get the per capita argument when it comes to the politics BUT it’s the absolute number which is screwing the climate.
Correct.
Borderlines are arbitrary. If you think globally then obviously the stronger onus should be on the ones who consume more per capita. Especially when you compare with China, who have certainly implemented measures to curb population growth. Within reason, obviously, but there is definitely a minority who are driving this far more than the hordes in the third world.
Last edited:
Yes, but who has most room for lowering their standard of living, people in China or people in e.g. the US?
The OECD countries consume ~39 % of global energy but we only account for ~17 % of the global population. Morally speaking the onus should be on us until further notice. Obviously everyone should get started pronto though.
The replies on this are a goldmine
Thanos was right
Everyone should started pronto - and what I think is important is that pollution (not just air pollution) should really get an economical factor.
Why? When it is not just less convenient to go by train from e.g. Paris to Munich and more time consuming - but when at the same time it is a lot cheaper to fly - something is wrong. When products get flown and shipped around the whole world just because somebody produces them some pennys cheaper it is the same. When spanish strawberrys are a lot cheaper than the ones from Germany - and some fruits are available all year long with an acceptable price something is wrong. I once watched a documentary about making cheap frozen Pizza where all ingredients came out of different parts of Europe even those that can be locally produced - just because they were cheaper elsewhere. The transport and with it the pollution should be a much bigger factor.
That might mean that T-Shirts or clothes get more expansive (production costs are often a small factor of that anyways) and you might just have 15 in your cupboard instead of 20 and keep it two years longer before you throw it away worn twice in five years...
If you do not need that SUV as you are not somebody that has to go offroad - you have too feel that in your pocket if your own sense does not tell you that anyways.
I don't disagree but do rich people have more of a right to pollute the world than poor people? If we are going to manage it over pricing it will inevitably be the poor who will have to contribute the most (they won't have a choice), while the rich don't really have to change anything if they're willing to spend a bit more on something they already spend loads on (SUV's for example).
How does this influence the poor more than the rich? It will influence the behaviour of all! Right now that behaviour is too less a luxury as it should be and people should feel it in their pockets as that is the only language some understand. But - it means that the whole tax system of a country has to change.
Right now "the poor" can afford those cheap strawberries or pizza, in the same way you can. The difference is some people can afford those few pennies extra, and some people can't. Those people can't just decide to pay slightly extra, or find a local alternative - they lose that choice. They're not choosing between having 15 t-shirts or 20, they're choosing between giving their kid a 15 year old t-shirt or a new one. It's not that straightforward, and you do have to appropriately weigh up the value of choice and the impact losing that has on people at various points of the economic spectrum - not just your own.
I do think it's a different story about air travel - limiting people's choice on that is justifiable in every sense, in my view. And as with anything in the society we've organised, limiting that choice will have the most adverse effects on the least well off. But there can be no argument that the way we currently think of air travel is appropriate or healthy.
The good thing is, air travel economics need to radically change for environmental reasons, but also for business reasons too. It's unsustainable on both fronts, so hopefully someone figures out the opportunity for both sides to work together to dramatically reduce the environmental output of air travel while also protecting the jobs it offers, or the holy grail of actually improving the working conditions of their employees on top of that.
Laws and taxation are a part of it but people's attitudes to air travel need to change too. That's where people like Greta can help, despite the cynicism. It's possible the vast majority of people 18+ will not take kindly to air travel becoming prohibitively expensive, even if they think it's better for the environment and society at large. But maybe Greta can soften kids' attitudes toward it before they feel like they've "lost" the ability to fly cheaply all over the world, and gradually that ripples through society.
I've posted about it before here, but transport of produce is a relatively small contribution to the total carbon footprint compared to the production of said produce. So it's not trivial that it's better climate wise to buy from a local production.
However, if we taxed all CO2 related to transport and shipping in general that would of course increase prices on products traveling across the world. And limit people's ability to go far away and holiday.
I found her speech to be over the top and very poorly delivered but surely the fact that she has raised awareness and some spirit outweighs the fact that it was all so dramatic?
Like it or not, she’s putting dangers of climate change and the reality into the minds of the masses. For change to occur, the masses need to think differently.
But ultimately, the fight against climate change won’t be won by the masses, it will be by the governments and the corporates. Having the masses breathing down their necks will be useful.
Like it or not, she’s putting dangers of climate change and the reality into the minds of the masses. For change to occur, the masses need to think differently.
But ultimately, the fight against climate change won’t be won by the masses, it will be by the governments and the corporates. Having the masses breathing down their necks will be useful.
I was reading some random article the other day that said the Republicans originally agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, back when it was just about being formed (early 90s). But then the Koch brothers started their climate denial campaign and the rest as they say, is history.
I have been thinking the same about the increasing number of SUV being sold. I can understand people wanting more space in their car. But, like anything, this comes at a price. And that price is weight which will increase fuel consumption, which will increase CO2 emissions.
The Motor industry loves them because they sell at an increased margin.
I have nothing specific against them but the manufacturers should be reducing the weight of all their vehicles.
"We Have to Eat the Babies!"
A modest proposal, that.
To say that she's nodding in support of the notion is so stupid
There is no "clean" in that equation. US mega companies producing in China is really on the US' emissions tab too. It's in the same realm of paying a poor country to take your garbage as landfill or dump it in their part of the ocean (an exploitation by the economic power of a rich country and whichever poor country's corrupt government). Whereas before you would think it mainly just affects that country, now we know it fecks us all. Which in a way is good. We need to sort this shit out and it's intrinsically bound to the system of greed and domination that's run rampant since at least WWII.
The latest data from 2018 shows CO2 emissions are increasing with China the top emitting country - see BBC Science, as a result of coal fired power stations.
That increase was 3% despite a rapid growth of green energy.
Petrol/Diesel consumption continues to grow due to increased car usage, with India growing rapidly.
These figures make extremely depressing reading and while all countries strive for economic growth, the future looks gloomy in the extreme.
We carry on as if nothing has changed, which knowing what we know about climate change makes no sense at all.
tomorrow never comes..
That stupid little girl has been labelled the new Jesus.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....greta-thunberg-successor-to-jesus-christ.html
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....greta-thunberg-successor-to-jesus-christ.html