|
On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote:
Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me.
I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable.
I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish/some indigenous peoples in the US and elsewhere (might be a stretch because they use a lot of US/national infrastructure/secondary materials) but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
|
On August 28 2019 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote:
Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me. I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable. I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true.
I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange.
And yes if we drastically reduce the population and all live like we did in the 11 century, completely give up on all technology the environment will be much much better. A lot of other things will be much much worse. I don't think it is a realistic option to have so many people die, but I wouldn't say that it won't be effective, for the environment.
|
On August 28 2019 01:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote:
Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me. I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable. I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible. It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true. I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange.
Bless your heart.
It's a myth.
No, I read them. Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother anymore, I don't think anyone takes them seriously at this point? Occasionally you mention something like "China is the worst" and I think it's important to dispel that widely accepted myth. Point out it's based on an extremely reductive perspective, that as others were gracious enough to point out, has racist overtones. Then ideally move on. Hard to ignore the nonsense that invariably follows (pervades the whole discussion) though. Some days I do better than others at that part.
EDIT: Yeah, this has run its course, gl Broet
|
You guys are moving in circles because you are mixing arguments about climate change with poilitical systems. I have zero idea what the dictatorship of china has to do with anything in regards to the contribution of climate change. Here are some completely unpolitical facts, as far as i believe in them. So not really facts. But i doubt they are untrue.
The US of A are the biggest polluter on the planet per capita and are currently in a process of making it way easier for companies to pollute even more.
While the government of the US of A is not interested at all in solving climate change, there is a more or less slow change in the efficiency of energy production within the States due to the market realising wind energy and to some extent solar is cheaper and wanted by the population.
China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet but quite low in terms of pollution per capita, while the government is heavily invested in allowing an increased carbon footprint of it's population.
Chinas government is at the same time trying to profit from pushing solutions for regenerative energies and becoming a market leader in green energy.
As a result, their carbon footprint per capita and in general is going to go up in the next decades but will probably stay below that of the US if there is not a radical change of direction in climate change policy.
So, political systems and human rights aside, China is acting way better then the US on a goverment level to combat climate change. They are still a worse place to live in freely, but that does not have anything to do with any of your arguments.
|
On August 28 2019 01:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
You guys are moving in circles because you are mixing arguments about climate change with poilitical systems. I have zero idea what the dictatorship of china has to do with anything in regards to the contribution of climate change. Here are some completely unpolitical facts, as far as i believe in them. So not really facts. But i doubt they are untrue.
The US of A are the biggest polluter on the planet per capita and are currently in a process of making it way easier for companies to pollute even more.
While the government of the US of A is not interested at all in solving climate change, there is a more or less slow change in the efficiency of energy production within the States due to the market realising wind energy and to some extent solar is cheaper and wanted by the population.
China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet but quite low in terms of pollution per capita, while the government is heavily invested in allowing an increased carbon footprint of it's population.
Chinas government is at the same time trying to profit from pushing solutions for regenerative energies and becoming a market leader in green energy.
As a result, their carbon footprint per capita and in general is going to go up in the next decades but will probably stay below that of the US if there is not a radical change of direction in climate change policy.
So, political systems and human rights aside, China is acting way better then the US on a goverment level to combat climate change. They are still a worse place to live in freely, but that does not have anything to do with any of your arguments.
So if your only measure is carbon footprint per captia than what your are saying is true and I agree. Where I disagree is that I don't believe that is the best measure. I (and most of the environmentalist I interact with) believe that that is one of the things that matter, so does waste management (often around plastics but also a host of hazardous materials, organics and so on), water quality and so on. China is doing things like openly burning plasitcs, putting huge amount into the Ocean and so on. The west is not doing those things.
But yeah if you want to say that China is not doing bad compared to the west on a per capita basis when measuring per capita. Sure it is true.
Someone could also say that China is the worst if you are measuring and only considering total carbon footprint. This is also true.
But if you are only looking at that you are looking at only one part of the climate crisis, carbon footprint, you are not getting the whole story. It is like reading that the natural gas is as bad as the CO2 for the next 20 years because Methane is so potent. And not looking into how Co2 breaks down WAY slower so it will be a problem for the next 10,000 years and where are the places getting their coal from and what are their mining practices like. It is not untrue, it is incomplete.
|
On August 28 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 01:06 JimmiC wrote:On August 28 2019 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote:
Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me. I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable. I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible. It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true. I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange. Bless your heart. It's a myth. No, I read them. Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother anymore, I don't think anyone takes them seriously at this point? Occasionally you mention something like "China is the worst" and I think it's important to dispel that widely accepted myth. Point out it's based on an extremely reductive perspective, that as others were gracious enough to point out, has racist overtones. Then ideally move on. Hard to ignore the nonsense that invariably follows (pervades the whole discussion) though. Some days I do better than others at that part.
It would be pretty sad if no one took the sources that I have shared in the OP and here not seriously. It would be fine to disagree with my opinion on them. But cherry picking what you agree about them and ignoring the rest is no different than what climate deniers do. Those sources are facts not opinions, tough luck if you disagree it does not make it any less true. Alternative facts are just lies, I'm sorry it does not matter if they are made up Chinese or american corps. Just in China those corps are also the government, in the US the corps have to pay off the government.
I mean as terrible as the US is, they have Bernie Sanders allowed to run, not being in prison, not being tortured and murdered. Sure big money interests are fighting him, but at least they are not killing him like they would in China.
|
According to world resources institute, America is "only" 14th worst in carbon emissions per capita, with countries like Canada and Australia beating us out.
http://cait2.wri.org/
Also, I have no problem with China, India, Brazil harming the environment to increase its people's quality of life.
They are not obligated to lag behind developed countries, many of which have become developed at the expense of today's developing countries.
They can get their chance too. As someone who's visited India and Pakistan multiple times, I can tell you that few people there care about the climate - they are more concerned with increasing their quality of life. Being in NYC and living in one of its Chinatowns for years, and talking to Chinese immigrants, I am under the impression that most in China don't care about climate either. This is obviously anecdotal but I can relate, and the proof is in the pudding when you look at those two countries.
If developed countries have a huge problem with the climate situation they can start by cutting their consumption, decreasing their quality of life, and instead start planting trees or whatever lol.
As an American myself, I don't plan on cutting my consumption unless someone gives me a good reason to. I know a lot of Americans who are the same (in fact i'd wager that if it ever really comes down to it, most Americans will not be willing to significantly cut their standard of living for the sake of climate change)
For those that strongly believe in fighting climate change through Green New Deal - like polices, good luck. I suspect you'll really need it.
|
Chia is doing lots of things to "safe" the Climate but for other, more immediate, reasons aside from Climate change. Two examples:
General pollution? Smog in cities makes them sometimes near uninhabitable and the chinese goverment has vowed to stop this problem asap.
Reforestation? The Desserts are growing and treathen to swallow cities, planting trees is the best answer to that.
Calling China "green" for these reasons is still wrong, they are basically forced to do certain things because else many parts of it will be uninhabitable very soon and even China isn't interested in resettling the whole of Bejing  .
I'm staggered that some of you think "per Capita" doesn't matter, that basically means that as a Swiss i can do whatever the fuck I want for the plain reason that there are not that many of us? How does that make sense. FFS: If you don't look at per capita numbers, better don't look at all.
I highly doubt that people are willing to drastically change their lifestyles, but goverments can and should enforce certain changes.
In Switzerland we banned "free" (plastic) bags in all shops, to get one you have to ask for it and pay 0.05$ (I can't think of another item, that is that cheap in any swiss shop ). The result? People use them drastically less and reusing shopping bags has become much more common in a very short amount of time. If you need one, you still can get one for basically nothing. We can do tons of small stuff like this that either doesn't bother people or even improves their life while being better for the climate than the status quo.
|
Complementary plastic bags are also rare these days in China(or at least in Shenzhen where I live). I'm pretty sure all the supermarkets and those branded convenient stores(7eleven and other local equivalent) charge around 50 cents ea, although some noname corner stores don't seem to care. Which is why those fabric grocery bags are common freebies at all sorts of promotional events, I guess umbrellas are just too precious!
That being said, based on my years of living in the country especially post-2005 when pollution started to attract major attention domestically, the worsening air quality is what most people focus on and really care about. I think when it comes to environmental issues most regular folks here(and I dare to say basically everywhere else) care more about how it affects their daily life rather than the planet in the long term, say global warming. Major reason why China is so polluted is the presumed 'world factory' role that has been so for years, manufacturing brings pollution, and that's the bigger picture here. The only way to make drastic improvement is to shut down factories and coal stations and cars, and that's just not gonna happen, nor would any country who buys from China want it to happen. (although you might argue on terms of the recent trade war, but that's a completely different story) I don't believe anything else would be game changer.
The Chinese government is putting in tons of effort to tighten environmental-related industrial regulations, mostly in power and steel businesses, plus nonstop promotion of environmental awareness to everybody who reads news and watches tv. And the way it looks there's a lot more coming. But then you might need some ability to read Chinese and willfulness to trust Chinese news to believe those statement, as I don't think that was ever reported on CNN or whatever.
|
On August 28 2019 11:17 BerserkSword wrote:According to world resources institute, America is "only" 14th worst in carbon emissions per capita, with countries like Canada and Australia beating us out. http://cait2.wri.org/Also, I have no problem with China, India, Brazil harming the environment to increase its people's quality of life. They are not obligated to lag behind developed countries, many of which have become developed at the expense of today's developing countries. They can get their chance too. As someone who's visited India and Pakistan multiple times, I can tell you that few people there care about the climate - they are more concerned with increasing their quality of life. Being in NYC and living in one of its Chinatowns for years, and talking to Chinese immigrants, I am under the impression that most in China don't care about climate either. This is obviously anecdotal but I can relate, and the proof is in the pudding when you look at those two countries. If developed countries have a huge problem with the climate situation they can start by cutting their consumption, decreasing their quality of life, and instead start planting trees or whatever lol. As an American myself, I don't plan on cutting my consumption unless someone gives me a good reason to. I know a lot of Americans who are the same (in fact i'd wager that if it ever really comes down to it, most Americans will not be willing to significantly cut their standard of living for the sake of climate change) For those that strongly believe in fighting climate change through Green New Deal - like polices, good luck. I suspect you'll really need it.
After checking your source, the countries that "beat" the States in 2014 are:
Kuwait
Brunei
Qatar
Belize
Guyana
Paraquay
Oman
Bahrain
Zambia
Palau
Canada
United Arab Emirates
Equatorial Guinea
Australia
Mongolia
Turkmenistan
Libya
Estonia
Most of the numbers for those countries seem to be quite constant, even though i have no idea why Libya, Turkmenistan, Mongolia and Zambia are that high on that list. Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst.
And regarding your last point of needing a good reason to cut back on consumption, don't you think the reason why it is necessary has already been given, you are just not willing to act on it? I mean, don't get me wrong, i am not currfently doing much to reduce my footprint as well but i would be willing to do it if society would start working in that direction. Nobody wants to live less luxurious as already experienced but people can be persuaded to do so if alternatives are available.
I would be the first person to sell my car and only use carsharing services if they would be well implemented and public transport would be less shitty. I would not care one bit if flights would become 3-4 times as expensive, especially the short ones. I would cry tears but i would be willing to eat less meat if it were rarer. These are the things that need to happen at some point, and who opposes them needs to explain why his right for luxury is more important then being able to habitat this planet longer then 100 years.
|
On August 28 2019 16:29 Velr wrote:Chia is doing lots of things to "safe" the Climate but for other, more immediate, reasons aside from Climate change. Two examples: General pollution? Smog in cities makes them sometimes near uninhabitable and the chinese goverment has vowed to stop this problem asap. Reforestation? The Desserts are growing and treathen to swallow cities, planting trees is the best answer to that. Calling China "green" for these reasons is still wrong, they are basically forced to do certain things because else many parts of it will be uninhabitable very soon and even China isn't interested in resettling the whole of Bejing . I'm staggered that some of you think "per Capita" doesn't matter, that basically means that as a Swiss i can do whatever the fuck I want for the plain reason that there are not that many of us? How does that make sense. FFS: If you don't look at per capita numbers, better don't look at all. I highly doubt that people are willing to drastically change their lifestyles, but goverments can and should enforce certain changes. In Switzerland we banned "free" (plastic) bags in all shops, to get one you have to ask for it and pay 0.05$ (I can't think of another item, that is that cheap in any swiss shop ). The result? People use them drastically less and reusing shopping bags has become much more common in a very short amount of time. If you need one, you still can get one for basically nothing. We can do tons of small stuff like this that either doesn't bother people or even improves their life while being better for the climate than the status quo.
I was not saying per-capita doesn't matter, it of course does and is good for trying to compare too countries of similar wealth but really different sizes. Other things like vastness and so on if they are comparable great.
What I was saying is it is not the be all end all of comparatives. I mean this is basically true of any thing you can find a stat to say what you want. You need to look at the full picture which in this case includes per capita, per gdp and total for CO2. Then if you are talking environmental practices that contribute to the climate crisis you need to look at a whole host of things, deforestation and air quality like you mentioned, waste management (are you burning garbage(open pit) putting in the ocean, so on. Also things like water treatment.
There are ton of factors to get a full picture. Sorry if it came across as per capita does not matter, what I was trying to say is it is not all that matters. For a complete picture look to more than one measure.
|
The EPA/US is going backwards. The EPA says they are rolling back restrictions on methane leaks.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in its proposed rule, aims to eliminate federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. It will also reopen the question of whether the E.P.A. even has the legal authority to regulate methane as a pollutant.
Erik Milito, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, praised the new rule, saying, “We think it’s a smarter way of targeting methane emissions.”
www.nytimes.com
|
The US continues to actively and intentionally go backwards environmentally with more rollbacks of common sense environmental reforms. This time it's energy efficient light bulbs.
The Trump administration is rolling back requirements for new, energy-efficient lightbulbs. The Energy Department announced the move on Wednesday, withdrawing standards that were to be put in place to make commonly used bulbs more efficient.
www.npr.org
|
Norway25534 Posts
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
|
I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
|
On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote:
I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
Population reduction isn't a sustainable strategy and it's probably horrific.
|
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
|
On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades.
As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two.
en.wikipedia.org
|
On September 08 2019 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries. Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on. Also you cant only look at carbon. Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally. China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though.
Can you back this claim up, or would you like to have a word with the forced laborers?
Since you made the edit, Wikipedia states ¥2300 is the poverty line, after quick research the cost of living on average is about ¥5000 something doesn’t add up.
|
On September 08 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote:
I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%. Population reduction isn't a sustainable strategy and it's probably horrific.
First, population growth isn't a sustainable strategy. It leads to a horrific environmental catastrophe. Population reduction can be achieved by educating women which in turn lowers birthrates below replacement level.
Regardless it doesn't matter to the example. I was simply arguing that per capita isn't the only relevant measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
