EPTChina, US and the environment - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6272 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on. You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth. I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last. I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad. If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working? You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth. No the usa is actually worse like gh already said. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita I don't think it is worth it anymore for countries to bend themselves over to reduce co2 emissions. They should try reduce but not at all cost. The thing is,the point of no return has been passed a long time ago,probably somewhere in the 70,s of previous century. Even if we would stop all emissions today,all of them,then the world will still continue to heat up for a very long time. It actually is to late to do something meaningfull lol so we might as well keep racing forward in the hope technology will come with better answers. There also is a more or less direct relation between GDP and co2 emissions. Which makes sense since 99% of our wealth is build on co2. Machines that do the work for us and which increase our productivity,They all run on co2. Our whole society runs on co2 emissions. If we reduce emissions with 50% then we reduce our wealth production with 50%. How many americans are actually willing to make that sacrifice? Almost none of them. So while it is absolutely horrible,and I do agree that something should have been done before we got to this point,it now actually is to late to do something. You seem to have better knowledge about this subject Jimmic,so i would like to ask:do you actually think that we could still turn it all around? And if so what do you think would be needed to turn it all around? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23893 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy. Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23893 Posts
On November 14 2019 12:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think I read somewhere that all of the US government bldgs are to be net neutral by 2030 or 2050 some place a while back. You also have most large corpos changing to pure renewable energy for their data centers and HQs. Hell, even here in Chicago there are a lot of solar going up. Still most of the fuel and energy is from fossil fuel, but people are slowly but surely changing. It just won't happen quick enough for some people's taste. And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy. Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters. Your first point has been pointed out as largely meaningless as they've had almost no measurable impact once you account for the pollution we send elsewhere. phm is right that a certain amount of damage has already been done and even if we reduced our carbon from energy to practically 0 it's still going to get worse before it gets better. The technological aspect of his point is fantasy. The reason we aren't much further in sustainable tech is that truly sustainable localized systems aren't nearly as profitable for the people in power and the capitalist systems like we see in the US cater almost exclusively to their interests. That's how China blew past the US in solar development. Your last point is mostly right and why the billionaires are already buying up reservoirs and water systems so they'll own both the water and it's delivery systems. EDIT: To be clear, the people building green energy data centers and HQ's, buying reservoirs, etc... are planning on ecological and infrastructure collapse then you and your descendants dying or exploiting the desperation for profit (and good PR). Not making an effort to curb climate collapse. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family. The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse. For reading: medium.com | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23893 Posts
On November 14 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost. The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family. The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse. For reading: medium.com Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40. You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
On November 14 2019 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40. You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people. Another fruitless discussion. | ||
|
chuchuchu
40 Posts
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla. About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland） The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people. In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city? You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked. You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world. I know the famous Swedish girl. But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest. Speech can't change the world. From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country. Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India. The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed. But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty. For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income. The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese. The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
