Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
All the more reason for China to get off of coal at this point. There's no way that's the most cost effective option they have.
|
Well, at least there is some point of agreement here, though Frownland wins the larger point, imo, that "obssessing about which country is Most to Blame" is not effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
You are missing the point Lisna. The U.S. does make strides toward reducing emissions. The problem is when others do not do the same despite the fact their cumulative output is over double our own.
|
Admittedly, I haven't gone beyond the pie chart we mentioned, but if you are refering to China, then I'm finding fault with your arithmatic here. 28% cannot be described as "over double" 15%
Quote:
|
Frownland and elph are not solutions-oriented people so you can't explain to them that in order to solve a problem you have to really focus at the top.
|
Both of those statements seem unjustified to me and for similar reasons: grand generalisations without evidence or context.
Quote:
|
The U.S. (along with a bunch of others) are buyers in regards to China - China is both the primary producer and the seller. China has more leverage than everyone else by the very nature of this relationship. Therefore, if you can get China to evolve their operations, by extension you reduce every other associated issue. Why? Because the likelihood of these buyer-seller relationships changing at any point before we die of old age is zero, whereas it is more feasible to push China to become more innovative both domestically and otherwise in regards to the production of goods and services.
|
I agree with most of this bit, Anteater, except for the bold. With tariffs, tech innovation, exchange rates, etc, buyer-seller relationships are surely constantly shifting. Ask the manager of any import/export business in the world.
Is this another example of your "15% = zero" thinking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
but the world economy is based to a degree on China being a kind of dungeon factory
the US loves cheap consumer goods, but would rather have some other country deal with the fall-out, in this way there is an illusion that Capitalism "works"
|
Yes, this is true, as is jwb's post: the most on-point summation so far:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
Re: china and India... They are industrializing the same way the west already did so it's a bit rich to say now that we've already fouled up the earth with our development that they are just supposed to languish in third world poverty for the sake of the planet imo
Whatever strides we do make in cutting emissions have been rather miniscule and based more on regulation and emissions standards. Which is like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Until the underlying energy infrastructure is completely overhauled and green technology made capable of out competing fossil fuels, we are ****ed. If said green technology was made cost effective and efficient enough countries like China and India would adopt them voluntarily out of self interest... I'm quite sure they don't actually want to live in smog ridden cities with toxic air. Of course that's easier said than done.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Church. If China and India shook hands to nuke England they'd be kinda justified.
|
Justified or not, I would be reluctant to support this approach for personal reasons.
I think the lopsided truth is that yes, we messed up the environment, but out of ignorance of the consequences. We also had a cleaner planet to poo on.
You, (China and India) don't have the excuse of ignorance and environmental circs have changed radically for the worse. Sorry guys, what was ok then is not ok today.
A somehow connected note of optimism is the story of the telephone service in Africa. It used to be terrible, and very limited. The solution of putting up telephone lines across the continent was unattainable, but then with satellite technology, Africa leapfrogged that problem completely.
That's what we want from India, China and Brasil: do something smarter, not based on the circs of 100 years ago.