this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
104 points (96.4% liked)
World News
32079 readers
1071 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then why the hell are the rest of us even trying?
Because it's additive?
Doesn’t matter, if they’re still gonna burn coal I shouldn’t have to switch to renewables either, or at the very least not on the quick timetable. Either all in or not at all, it’s not like the effects above 2C aren’t going to kill everyone anyway
What an idiotic sentiment
Unfortunately it's an easy sentiment to promulgate. It taps into feelings of fairness and justice. Those are some very foundational emotional drivers for humans
However, I think there's a chance to turn that sort of reasoning around. Like if we appeal to the idea of right and wrong. If using fossil fuels is like stealing or assault or worse, then the fact that someone else is doing it doesn't suddenly make it ok. It makes the person doing it a bad person.
The problem with fossil fuel use currently is that so many people are using them and whole countries and ways of life have been built around using them. Getting rid of fossil fuels has the potential to be as disruptive as getting rid of slavery.
Effects above 2C will not, in fact, "Kill everyone." The idea that this whole thing is some binary condition between "Everything is fine" and "Everyone dies" is complete nonsense. Every fraction of a degree we reduce or prevent will make a difference to survivability and quality of life for people all across the planet.
It all matters (in the sense that every country, big and small, should be trying to decarbonise; obviously, those efforts should be targeted on billionaires and massive pollution driving industries where we'll make an actual difference, not completely ineffectual headline grabbed like plastic bags and drinking straws).
Because on a per-capita basis, you still outpollute China by a factor of at least 2?
Because unlike China, your government moves incredibly slowly and needs more momentum to actually accomplish change?
Carbon is carbon, mass is mass, and heat is heat, none of it cares about population size, we could just as easily look at it as a per-gdp basis, and it would be just as useful
Government of China says we don’t need to change, or at least they don’t, I don’t think I should either then. Especially considering no climate change policy works without the whole world decarbonizing, including China, regardless of how small their number looks on a per capita basis
China is moving faster on renewables than every other country. China is moving faster on EVs than every other country.
Who's not changing?
All these different measures and not the only one that matters lol
If you feel like giving China a domestic supply of O&G so they can switch their coal plants to gas ones, be my guest.
That's been the single greatest contributor to reduced emissions in North America and Europe over the past few decades.