381–390 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanos is that you? Wanting to kill people now, to hopefully save the environment in the future.
Why do you think people have to die? Keep the strictly necessary things, get rid of the superfluous. Doesn't seem too difficult to me.
I recommend the book Seeing Like A State.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does “per capita” emissions have to do with the physics of climate change?
It's related to the comment I was replying to: > Meanwhile, educated people in western countries are incredibly eco-conscious, have excellent modern waste management, have amazing huge national parks and conservation areas, clean waterways or have nets to prevent plastics entering the oceans.. are 'banning' gasoline cars by 2030.. and the air quality! Amazing. The commenter appears to say that people in western count…
https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022#emissions_table
Per capita, EU27 is at 6.25 whereas China is at 8.73 whereas the US is at 14.24:
https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022?vis=pop#emissions...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have huge lengths of high speed and regional rail. The difference shows up in the energy per capita numbers. Nothing prevents climate change unless we get more intentional and scaled investments in renewable energy and circular green economies.
That rail would be nice to have, but it will not yield a decisive difference on the global warming time frame (~20 years). You could go the Soviet route (had 30 cars per 1,000 people, a lot of train, bus and subway), but do you really want that? Of course, you would want to improve it because Soviet economy was hugely wasteful despite all this. Plus, all the apartment blocks are not going to build themselves, and cer…
We need a 1000s of bullets fired at changes to avoid even higher costs of climate change on our current path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanos is that you? Wanting to kill people now, to hopefully save the environment in the future.
The environment will be fine. They want to kill people now in order to hopefully save people from dying in the future. How this is not a parody is beyond me.
this is drastically wrong and dangerous rhetoric
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanos is that you? Wanting to kill people now, to hopefully save the environment in the future.
You have to consider how many people will die in the future from climate change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's not that big of a problem. Go live like that for 6 months and get back to us: food insecurity, inadequate healthcare, and few civil services or safety net. Those other countries are not net zero pollution either. You wanna crash the economy? How then will we develop the innovations to fix this problem? Can't…
Europe doesn't have food insecurity. Health is pretty good and there's a safety net. Even China scores pretty well on those points. Yet their per capita emissions are much lower than the US.
You also should be aware about the amount of coal power plants it runs and keeps building (https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-takes-the-brakes-off-coal...).
It is a good time to ask ourselves which country contributes the most to emissions and crucial to avoid any mental gymnastics while at that. But unfortunately yes if you dramatically reduce coal usage in China people will die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could take a boat. It takes longer but you said it's not an emergency.
Ships are worse than planes. https://theicct.org/marine-cruising-flying-may22/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't take into account that countries like the US have already cut emissions and emissions have been declining for years. Meanwhile, China has much greater total emissions than the US does and emissions in China are increasing per year continuously as they are in India. Total global emissions are what matters for the climate. Although reducing waste and being more efficient are always helpful, fixating on lif…
Source? (AFAIK it does, and it'd be very unexpected for it not to. The rest of the comment is unclear to me. I may be reading it as a strawman instead of a steelman -- would a reply like: 'just because our derivative is negative doesn't mean on a per-capita basis we're less' be accurate? I'm sure I missed something)
You can find some details here https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... I am surprised you didn't know this already.
Here is China https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?location...
It doesn't take into account trends that already exist. In the next decade small reductions to emissions in US transportation per year will be meaningless. Also reducing agricultural emissions which are only 10% of CO2 emissions in the US will have little affect on total global emissions. I'm not sure why there is so much hand waving about the CO2 emissions of China alone.
My prediction is that geo-engineering will be done when a certain death/disturbance threshold will have been reached (too many climate refugees for example and western world can't achieve a closed border, or too many weather disasters that hit the western world and populations are convinced it is because of global warming). However I don't think we will reach it in the next 5-10 years, but maybe after that period. Al…
The US and EU countries get more migrants than they can handle; resentment grows; attempts to solve the problem with bureaucracy and policing fail spectacularly; calls for outright violence grow louder; and the well-meaning citizenry agrees that Something Must Be Done!
Geo-engineering is something, and it will be done.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_European_migrant_crisis
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/10/us/migrant-crisis-massach...
[2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico-border-cr...
[3]: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-migration-pol...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change This really shouldn’t be the top comment on this thread without some sort of reference to cost/benefit analysis to back it up. Otherwise this appears to be an overly extreme solution to give climate deniers fuel to not listen to more reasonable solutions.
It's not like anyone on this message board has a little 'crash the economy' button on their keyboard.