|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Hong Kong localists have a good saying: "If we burn, you burn with us" good thinking buddy. Which countries are going to be hosed first by climate change? Think hard, you can do it. Edit: Also, that kind of thinking means we are targeting the least efficient areas of climate change. That is, what you propose has the least likelihood of actually saving our planet. ALSO, what you propose comes down to saying that we have an unregulated tragedy of the commons, since of course, why should I reduce anything to make those others live better, especially if further reductions in Europe do next to nothing compared to China continuing to build up coal powerplants. In fact, Europe can not stop climate change by itself even if it simply stopped existing. So why bother reducing the welfare of our citizens even a single bit more if everyone else doesn't give a poo poo? Let's live out our remaining time in luxury, right? What you are saying is that climate change doesn't matter and every country should try to do its utmost to kill the planet until parity is reached. If you think that, fine, its certainly an opinion. Probably gonna suck for all them Africans and Asians being dead tho Not sure if northern Europeans/Scandies are gonna cry so much about living in essentially Italy/Spain in fifty years, climate wise. Just gotta make sure to vote right because there's walls to be built! Real solidarity from you. Good job. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Dec 16, 2019 |
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
The human race must go extinct because the alternative, hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, is unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
Hmmm I think this may be about more than “hurt feelings.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Hmmm I think this may be about more than “hurt feelings.” I don't know, the people who voted for Donald Trump pretty much did because they had their feelings hurt by Barack Obama being black.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I don't know, the people who voted for Donald Trump pretty much did because they had their feelings hurt by Barack Obama being black. Is that why China decided to industrialize?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Is that why China decided to industrialize? Really, civilization was a mistake, and since China invented civilization it's mostly their fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Is that why China decided to industrialize? I'm less interested in why China decided to industrialize than in how it actually pulled it off. It didn't force capitalists in the rest of the world to go along at gunpoint. It's completely whitewashing our own responsibility in the problem to go "China is a big polluter and bad" as if they weren't polluting to make poo poo to sell abroad. Say instead of China the outsourced production went to a bunch of countries in Southeast-Asia or Africa. Would it have made a difference in terms of emission? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Great Leap Forward hurt a lot of feelings. Actually, China was industrializing before the GLP, but don’t let me get in your way. Kassad posted:I'm less interested in why China decided to industrialize than in how it actually pulled it off. It didn't force capitalists in the rest of the world to go along at gunpoint. It's completely whitewashing our own responsibility in the problem to go "China is a big polluter and bad" as if they weren't polluting to make poo poo to sell abroad. Say instead of China the outsourced production went to a bunch of countries in Southeast-Asia or Africa. Would it have made a difference in terms of emission? I dunno. Our perception would probably depend on the geopolitical alignment of those states, I doubt emissions would be that different if we are talking about the same degree of economic activity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
A lot of reductionist kneejerk bad takes that seem to suggest that China should just NOT industrialize at all if industrializing means any increase in GHG emissions and any suggestion that maybe the global north should do something to help the global south avoid the dirtiest part of developing; for example helping establish a global UBI so people dont have to work because having to be employed means emissions. The US and most of the developed world wastes more than enough food to supply the global south; if they provided the excess to the world to alleviate hunger that's a lot less farming that needs to be done. It's asinine and cruel to suggest developing economies should just stop developing and provide for their citizens a better life; responsibility lies with developed economies to step in and provide an arm to lean on. What do people honestly suggest China should do, stop building roads and railways? Make millions freeze to death in the winter to avoid using coal for heating their homes? It's almost as though certain posters hold the lives of people living in the global south as having inherently less value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of reductionist kneejerk bad takes that seem to suggest that China should just NOT industrialize at all if industrializing means any increase in GHG emissions and any suggestion that maybe the global north should do something to help the global south avoid the dirtiest part of developing; for example helping establish a global UBI so people dont have to work because having to be employed means emissions. The US and most of the developed world wastes more than enough food to supply the global south; if they provided the excess to the world to alleviate hunger that's a lot less farming that needs to be done. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of reductionist kneejerk bad takes that seem to suggest that China should just NOT industrialize at all if industrializing means any increase in GHG emissions and any suggestion that maybe the global north should do something to help the global south avoid the dirtiest part of developing; for example helping establish a global UBI so people dont have to work because having to be employed means emissions. The US and most of the developed world wastes more than enough food to supply the global south; if they provided the excess to the world to alleviate hunger that's a lot less farming that needs to be done. 1. I don't think many Westerns are actually that interested in a real sacrifice it will take to deal with climate change, and at the end of the day you have to blame someone. 2. Part of it is just about framing, India has an even higher portion of its electricity from coal (which makes sense), but India is in a neutral-friendly position toward the US while in recent years China has become an direct opponent and the rethoric follows. It makes that both India and China uses coal, or hell, that India uses more considering its relative earlier in its development, but it doesn't matter as long as the sides are clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
I mean I am willing to be charitable and give the benefit of the doubt that a lack of mention of India is due to it being the China thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I mean I am willing to be charitable and give the benefit of the doubt that a lack of mention of India is due to it being the China thread. I don’t mean specifically this and the other threads but generally through Western media outlets and domestic politics. It is also probably something that should still be kept in mind. The point is that the framing of what is happening is extremely situational. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Dec 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
There's also the difference that China has been bragging about how advanced it is, how it's the world's biggest economy and greatest in everything by 2020 and meanwhile India is making a big deal about building some toilets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:2. Part of it is just about framing, India has an even higher portion of its electricity from coal (which makes sense), but India is in a neutral-friendly position toward the US while in recent years China has become an direct opponent and the rethoric follows. It makes that both India and China uses coal, or hell, that India uses more considering its relative earlier in its development, but it doesn't matter as long as the sides are clear. I mean in terms of absolute numbers India is outputting about a fourth of what China does and half what the US does, and has about 1/4 the per-capita carbon output, so while India absolutely needs to cap their carbon emissions it's in a slightly lesser ballpark than China and the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
India has been getting a free pass from the west for making copy medicine. The US will absolutely use it to squeeze India if its economy is actually formidable and approaching US in the future. Unfortunately， India is just bad at making other stuff. They knew their manufacturing is not competitive too that's why they are not joining the RCEP. Off topic I never understand why call center service industry is a thing in India while countries like Filippine exist and they speak much better Americanized English.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Off topic I never understand why call center service industry is a thing in India while countries like Filippine exist and they speak much better Americanized English. India is really big for IT outsourcing, although in the UK at least Romania and Ukraine are starting to displace it. For obvious reasons it is helpful to be able to get an engineer available from your call centre which would be near impossible if the call centre and Engineering were in different countries. There are also historic reasons why it's easier for British people to work with India than South-East Asia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean in terms of absolute numbers India is outputting about a fourth of what China does and half what the US does, and has about 1/4 the per-capita carbon output, so while India absolutely needs to cap their carbon emissions it's in a slightly lesser ballpark than China and the US. But as I said, much of that is just timing, and if the Indian economy keeps growing, it will eventually get there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
If the world wanted to help Hong Kong, and created protest tourism since China’s people can’t do it, and hundreds of thousands organized, bought a ticket, went to China’s capital to protest peaceably, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much of a disaster would be? They’re foreign citizens, would they just be deported?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If the world wanted to help Hong Kong, and created protest tourism since China’s people can’t do it, and hundreds of thousands organized, bought a ticket, went to China’s capital to protest peaceably, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much of a disaster would be? They’re foreign citizens, would they just be deported? You do know you have to apply for a visa to visit China, right? You can't just show up at the airport and expect to leave or stay more than 24 hours with a transit visa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If the world wanted to help Hong Kong, and created protest tourism since China’s people can’t do it, and hundreds of thousands organized, bought a ticket, went to China’s capital to protest peaceably, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much of a disaster would be? They’re foreign citizens, would they just be deported? The world doesn’t want to do that because your equivalent of the Abraham Lincoln brigade would be backing right wing localists who fly American and UK flags, countries not popular with underdog freedom fighters. That leaves only Americans and other privileged first worlders who would care. Just the airfare to get to Hong Kong would be cost prohibitive. Not to mention the culture barrier and not really being plugged into the localist protest groups that are organizing the ongoing riots there. Ostensibly English exists as a second language for Hong Kong residents but in practice they are deficient in its ability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
To reiterate, if you advocate China staying the course then you do not care about climate change. If you are willing to give China a pass at all you do not care about climate change. We're talking about a literal force of nature and if you want to throw out corollaries about how it's okay for some people to emit insane amounts of Co2 but not others for ephemeral reasons, then you are actively contributing to denialist rhetoric because you look like a goddamn hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:To reiterate, if you advocate China staying the course then you do not care about climate change. If you are willing to give China a pass at all you do not care about climate change. Again, China is doing more effort; the US and the West could learn a lot from China's example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Again, China is doing more effort; the US and the West could learn a lot from China's example. They are just lying their rear end off about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of reductionist kneejerk bad takes that seem to suggest that China should just NOT industrialize at all if industrializing means any increase in GHG emissions and any suggestion that maybe the global north should do something to help the global south avoid the dirtiest part of developing; for example helping establish a global UBI so people dont have to work because having to be employed means emissions. The US and most of the developed world wastes more than enough food to supply the global south; if they provided the excess to the world to alleviate hunger that's a lot less farming that needs to be done. I don't understand your tense here. They have already industrialized. China is industrial. They are not developing, they're developed. They're not some scrappy underdog trying to make ends meet in a harsh and cruel world, they're the second largest economy on the planet. If you're gonna say that countries can skimp on environmentalism until they've got on their feet, China has to be past that point by now, or else nobody is. These are all sounding like the arguments why we in the US need to stay invested in coal for the sake of jobs. Yeah, it can sometimes be economically risky to invest in environmentalism and start raising costs on fossil fuels, but somebody's gotta be willing to take the hit at some point, or else it'll never get done
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:These are all sounding like the arguments why we in the US need to stay invested in coal for the sake of jobs. Yeah, it can sometimes be economically risky to invest in environmentalism and start raising costs on fossil fuels, but somebody's gotta be willing to take the hit at some point, or else it'll never get done That butcher's bill can be paid by rich people living it up in the west, not a country that was less developed than sub-saharan Africa in 1960.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Theyd poison a hundred thousand babys for a few RMB. You think they care about poisoning the planet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I don't understand your tense here. They have already industrialized. China is industrial. They are not developing, they're developed. They're not some scrappy underdog trying to make ends meet in a harsh and cruel world, they're the second largest economy on the planet. If you're gonna say that countries can skimp on environmentalism until they've got on their feet, China has to be past that point by now, or else nobody is. China is right below average global GDP per capita (PPP - 2017), below Botswana and Costa Rica. They have made a massive amount of progress but I wouldn't say they are part of the developed world at this point. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:China is right below average global GDP per capita (PPP - 2017), below Botswana and Costa Rica. They have made a massive amount of progress but I wouldn't say they are part of the developed world at this point. Exactly. China in major cities feels and looks like a modern country but there's still significant distance they need to catch up to before having a GDP per capita on par with the USA. Only 50,000 people are employed in coal in the US, the US could easily give that 50,000 a UBI to stop working in coal literally today. China doesn't have that ability for everyone reliant on coal without returning to failed socio-economic state controlled economic policies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:China is right below average global GDP per capita (PPP - 2017), below Botswana and Costa Rica. They have made a massive amount of progress but I wouldn't say they are part of the developed world at this point. Regardless of the GDP China is still a massively industrialized country. It's annual steel output is something like bigger than no 2 to no 6 combined. In fact this is one of China's biggest strength. As long as China has bigger industry output，China can afford to not compete with US both in the military and the finance industry directly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:That butcher's bill can be paid by rich people living it up in the west, not a country that was less developed than sub-saharan Africa in 1960. No it can not, then we all die, starting with the poor people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Any argument that per capita numbers don't matter is simply delusional and I don't know why it's even being seriously discussed Like even ignoring any moral aspects to it. Are you seriously expecting an entire population, most of which is not actually well-off, to broadly accept a drastic reduction in quality of life? Things like that don't happen without losing a total war first. quote:We're talking about a literal force of nature and if you want to throw out corollaries about how it's okay for some people to emit insane amounts of Co2 but not others for ephemeral reasons, then you are actively contributing to denialist rhetoric because you look like a goddamn hypocrite. Ephemeral concepts such as "division by an integer" Do you think that the US and Canada should emit similar amounts of CO2? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Redmark posted:Ephemeral concepts such as "division by an integer" Ephemeral concepts like "People from one country have a vague, unquantifiable right to emit planet killing toxins that people from other countries don't have, on the basis of universally applicable historical original sin as defined by me." Even if this position is 100% morally correct (which egregiously discounts the demographics of what people refer to "The West" anyway) it's just as impossible a sell as convincing the Chinese or Indians or other developing countries that they don't have the "right" to emit. It's a dead end argument that people who don't post in c-spam are going to ignore outright, if they don't laugh in your face. This is not conducive to actually addressing climate change. quote:Do you think that the US and Canada should emit similar amounts of CO2? Why or why not? I think that the US and Canada should reduce their emissions, preferably to zero. I think that China also should reduce its emissions, preferably to zero. Canada and the US have been doing a much better job in this regard than China, on the basis of the fact that both of them emit less and their emissions are either stable or declining, contrasted to China's which are forecast to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. This doesn't seem like it should be a controversial position in light of the fact that climate change is a force of nature that doesn't care "who started it" but apparently mitigating it is secondary to ensuring that Chinese and Indian nationalist sentiment is properly accommodated. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
Despera posted:Theyd poison a hundred thousand babys for a few RMB. You think they care about poisoning the planet? Who do you mean, the Chinese in general? If you’re talking about the 2008 milk formula scandal, yes that was hideous, but billionaires anywhere are not above murdering babies for profit, this has been shown by history many times. So this post comes across as really gross and racist. It makes the whole discussion worse. Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of reductionist kneejerk bad takes that seem to suggest that China should just NOT industrialize at all if industrializing means any increase in GHG emissions and any suggestion that maybe the global north should do something to help the global south avoid the dirtiest part of developing; for example helping establish a global UBI so people dont have to work because having to be employed means emissions. The US and most of the developed world wastes more than enough food to supply the global south; if they provided the excess to the world to alleviate hunger that's a lot less farming that needs to be done. You seem to be responding to the assertion that China should simply stop using coal entirely right now or in fact stop industrialization all together. I don’t think anyone in this thread has actually made that assertion, however. What people are saying is that China is clearly not doing a good enough job on climate change. I agree that more of the responsibility should be placed on developed countries, but regardless of whether they assume their fair responsibility or not, China also has to make changes. And in light of the fact that the west is shirking its responsibility, fair or unfair, a heavier burden of reducing carbon emissions falls on China. And China is also not willing to take up that burden to the extent needed to prevent disastrous consequences. Regardless of the fact that China still has many poor and undeveloped areas, it also has a powerful economy and a very wealthy and powerful central government. That government surely could be devoting much more to the fight against global warming. Certainly rapid growth in military spending and military buildup in the pacific, to name one specific thing, is not conducive to reducing carbon emissions, and those resources could be much better spent elsewhere. Again, the important issue here is not whether or not China is doing a better job than the US or other western countries on climate change, it’s that China is clearly not doing a good enough job and needs to improve. Given the leadership role it should be taking, the US deserves more criticism on this front than China. But that doesn’t make China exempt from criticism entirely. Leftism should be a global movement and the leadership of China are not its allies. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend in this case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I think that the US and Canada should reduce their emissions, preferably to zero. I think that China also should reduce its emissions, preferably to zero. Canada and the US have been doing a much better job in this regard than China, on the basis of the fact that both of them emit less and their emissions are either stable or declining, contrasted to China's which are forecast to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Part of the reason the US and Canada can reduce their emissions is they just outsource heavy industry to China and the global south. This is not accounted for by conventional metrics. Indirectly, the US contributes to emissions in other countries which it then criticises for not decarbonising. This is a great imperialist trick, to make a country do a Bad Thing then criticise them for the Bad Thing while ignoring your own role in it. What you're arguing is that the developing world should unilaterally reduce carbon emissions at any economic cost including the deaths of millions of people in those countries. What other people are arguing is: - China and India should be able to develop but should taper off their carbon emissions in the long term, at a somewhat slower pace than the US and other parts of the developed world - The US is hypocritical in this regard and should obey the Paris climate accords - If the US isn't leading in this area it should be compelled to obey the climate accords by sanctions etc - The developed world should pay climate reparations to the developing world to assist them in decarbonisation Two out of these points are exactly what has been agreed on at international forums for climate change. The third is a way of enforcing the first two points and is a bit spicier because it threatens the US position as global hegemony. The fourth is especially spicy because it involves developed countries making a material sacrifice based on past injustice, which is electoral poison but morally right. I don't see how any of this is against what you're arguing on the surface. Everyone is saying China should decarbonise in the long term , they are just identifying issues and difficulties along the way which mean it would be difficult to do it on the scale you're demanding right now. So: do you think Chinese people deserve to die rather than the US taking full responsibility for its role in climate change? Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:So: do you think Chinese people deserve to die rather than the US taking full responsibility for its role in climate change? You're arguing that although the house is on fire it is unfair to ask anyone to put it out until everyone has had an equal opportunity to hold a lighter to the drapes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Chinese people are literally going to die from climate change, at the same time as the consequences in rich-Europe are still a) some more rain, b) longer summers. Doubly so for other countries in Asia and Africa. And even if the EU reaches and surpasses all its climate goals, the above will still be true if the US and China (and India and whoever) don't change their way. So you can argue all you want that "now it's China's time to destroy the planet" because its ethically fair. It's a dead argument. The whole thing comes down to China and the US, so those countries who currently don't give a poo poo about their CO2 footprint at all. And those countries, especially the poor ones, are also the ones who will be hit first. It seems like you think that China can just go ahead with building coal plants because the Europeans would be forced to reduce even more. But that's not really true. It's an empty threat. If any country will be fine, it's those countries that are industrialized and are already reducing their emissions a lot. Which ALSO means the effect of anything further is relatively minor. Also those countries are - as you pointed out - small in terms of population and overall impact. It depends entirely on China. What I am saying is that y'all recommend China literally kills itself to be right. Edit: We can run the numbers, but I am sure that even if the US suddenly becomes sane and cuts emissions, then China probably STILL needs to stop building coal plants to save the planet. That is why the per capita argument is useless here. China and India together are so huge, that nothing will work except BOTH finding a environment friendly growth path. And there is absolutely nothing they can do to any rich country that wouldn't hit themselves first. Why is this even an argument? And IF that is so, then the consequence is that China is directly responsible for endangering the lives of billions of people in Asia and Africa especially if it continues. China's size means it is now, at this point in history, not possible anymore to grow and industrialize without bounds and not kill a fuckload of people if not the planet. Even if the West literally disappears from the face of the Earth. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
This poo poo about building new plants/adding capacity is a red herring, the plants get built by silly regional governments but sit around collecting dust because even in china they are more expensive to operate than renewables, which have free inputs. The important question isn't plant capacity but how much coal is actually getting burned, a number that is basically static and is projected to start going down in the next year or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
quote:You seem to be responding to the assertion that China should simply stop using coal entirely right now or in fact stop industrialization all together. This is literally what Fojar is saying. caps on caps on caps posted:Chinese people are literally going to die from climate change, at the same time as the consequences in rich-Europe are still a) some more rain, b) longer summers. Your post seems to be a disorganized mess so I'll respond to the most clear cut point where I think your assumptions are erroneous. We currently don't life in a world where the US, Canada, and Europe, are all making commitments to stop climate change or meet GHG emission targets, we don't even live in a world where the US even admits climate change is real. Why do you assume a vacuum where the West gets it poo poo together but not the global south? Wouldn't it be far more likely that the West getting its poo poo together is what actually gets China and India on board? Most of your post doesn't make sense or is responding to arguments anyone has made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
As I said in the previous page, Americans love talking about what their government is doing wrong but god forbid other countries criticise America as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 15:07
|
|