Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#51

Post by tks2103 »

dcc1 wrote: post #34
tks2103 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India was also colonized. You aren't being unbiased when you point out medicine and technology, but not colonialism.

So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you

The comment I responded to pointed out that India has different circumstances surrounding its industrialization because it has more advanced technology and medicine.

I was pointing out that it is disingenuous to claim India has different circumstances if you are going to point out technology and medicine, but not that it was colonized as recently as the late 40s.

If you want to point out countries that are doing fine after colonization, I would think America would be the best example.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#52

Post by cscurmudgeon »

dredmorbius wrote: post #48
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #3

Logically speaking for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things should happen: a huge number of people in India should die or Indians should consume almost nothing (everything else being equal.) I don't understand how anyone can fault India for its current stance given that the state we are in was caused by the developed countries. The only way anyone can fault India is by asserting that an Indian life i…

for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things should happen There are two other possibilities you don't consider: 1. India could prevail in negotiating for carbon emission reductions elsewhere (the US, EU, Japan). Technology transfers greatly increasing India's GDP/bbl wouldn't hurt either -- it's presently around $400/bbl, the US sees $1000/bbl, most of Europe is in the $1500-$3000/bbl range. 2. Stunning…

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living independent of where they were born. Or at the least, the same "pollution limits" independent of borders.

The earth and the climate don't care who pollutes how much. The total amount of pollution matters and there shouldn't be a privileged few consuming magnitudes higher than the rest. Plain and simple.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#53

Post by tks2103 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #50
tks2103 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general point "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. "History is rife with inequities" only means something to rich westerners. You are not going to get India on board by claiming Ireland had it just as bad. India's GDP per capita is $1500. Ireland's is $45000. That's a factor of 30. China is going to think the same way. They are going to see any bluster from wes…

"history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict. India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US here). So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is we…

Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions.

In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them.

And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to understand that, instead of just saying "Well these developing countries are sure being jerks by blocking talks!"

What is an LDC blinder, btw?

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#54

Post by dredmorbius »

tks2103 wrote: post #53
dredmorbius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict. India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US here). So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is we…

Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions. In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them. And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to unde…

LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part.

Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider normalizing CO2 emissions per capita as an alternative) would work for me.

When a significant aspect of the Slate article dealt not with CO2 emissions but with HFCs -- hydroflourocarbons, used as refrigerants and themselves potent and long-lived greenhouse gases -- it becomes rather more difficult to pull the carbon / colonization card. Which is just what India are doing here.

You've gone on the attack against several people in this thread, largely on the "India was oppressed" card. Not to put too fine a point on it: that's not productive. If you want to introduce that fact into your debate, I'd suggest finding an alternative argument.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#55

Post by dredmorbius »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #52
dredmorbius wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things should happen There are two other possibilities you don't consider: 1. India could prevail in negotiating for carbon emission reductions elsewhere (the US, EU, Japan). Technology transfers greatly increasing India's GDP/bbl wouldn't hurt either -- it's presently around $400/bbl, the US sees $1000/bbl, most of Europe is in the $1500-$3000/bbl range. 2. Stunning…

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living independent of where they were born. Or at the least, the same "pollution limits" independent of borders. The earth and the climate don't care who pollutes how much. The total amount of pollution matters and there shouldn't be a privileged few consuming magnitudes higher than the rest. Plain and simple.

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living

I suspect we'll get there.

What I'm less certain of is what that standard of living will be.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#56

Post by cscurmudgeon »

dredmorbius wrote: post #55
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living independent of where they were born. Or at the least, the same "pollution limits" independent of borders. The earth and the climate don't care who pollutes how much. The total amount of pollution matters and there shouldn't be a privileged few consuming magnitudes higher than the rest. Plain and simple.

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living I suspect we'll get there. What I'm less certain of is what that standard of living will be.

So poor people should try getting rich because there is a chance everyone will get poor? (Meanwhile the rich consume as usual.) Don't you see how fucked up that stance is?

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #56
dredmorbius wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living I suspect we'll get there. What I'm less certain of is what that standard of living will be.

So poor people should try getting rich because there is a chance everyone will get poor? (Meanwhile the rich consume as usual.) Don't you see how fucked up that stance is?

So poor people should try getting rich because there is a chance everyone will get poor?

Sorry, I'm not parsing that. Are you missing a negative somewhere?

My intended meaning: a greater level of allocation equity may be achieved. If we're lucky, it's going to be at a relatively high level (I'd be happy with a late 19th / early 20th century industrialized world equivalent). If we're not, it will be at subsistence agricultural levels -- somewhere between late bronze and early iron ages.

Modern industrialized civilization is a tremendous heat engine, and without high-quality fuel inputs, it will cease to function. That will tend to decrease global wealth and population drastically.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#58

Post by tks2103 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #54
tks2103 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions. In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them. And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to unde…

LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part. Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider…

Seeming reasonable to people this thread is not a priority for India. Neither is seeming reasonable to western countries. India wants to industrialize, and they will do it any way they can.

If you care about emissions, you need to understand that. Saying that they are making dick moves for making perfect reasonable, rational decisions given their position will not be compelling to them.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#59

Post by rodgerd »

waps wrote: post #32
rodgerd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true, but assuming the science is correct on this issue, we're squabbling over who gets which bits said of the houses while they're burning down. With us in them.

I realize you're being metaphorical, but "houses burning down" ? Really ? We'll have to relocate a few cities, or abandon them. Sure, not pleasant, but nobody will be burning.

Starving from crop collapses, but I guess that's no biggie.

Re: India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

#60

Post by dredmorbius »

tks2103 wrote: post #58
dredmorbius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part. Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider…

Seeming reasonable to people this thread is not a priority for India. Neither is seeming reasonable to western countries. India wants to industrialize, and they will do it any way they can. If you care about emissions, you need to understand that. Saying that they are making dick moves for making perfect reasonable, rational decisions given their position will not be compelling to them.

Wanting something alone won't make it so.

Mind: the industrialized Western nations need to learn this as well.

Post reply on HN