631–640 of 666 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? I'm sure I personally consume much less than your country of 40 million
The point is China consumes a lot, for the rest of the world and for itself. Was pretty obvious, but I wrote it down for you as you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is propaganda. It's impossible to take this comment in good faith
This article is propaganda. Its part of a green washing campaign China started a few years ago to offset their reputation of being a dirty country powered by coal. Think about how often you hear about China's solar despite it being a tiny part of their energy grid.
The propaganda aspect is comparing absolute emissions of China to the absolute emissions of some smaller nation. That's only done to confuse people and delay the transition to emission free energy production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be coy, but what do you mean by that? The reason I ask is because I think many of us use these terms, but without ever thinking about exactly which behaviors we're critiquing, or how they relate to what we truly value. For instance both the Roman and Greek Empires deserve immense respect, yet they were both often imperial empires ruled by dictators. The same is no less true of many societies that played key ro…
> who is incompetent I just hope we never go back to Mao-levels of incompetence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's neither of those. If I plant a tree near my house, but cut down all of my neighbor trees, it would show that I have planted one tree while my neighbors none.
The comment was downvoted and flagged by several other community members so I don't seem to be out of step with community sentiment on this. I can accept that you sincerely felt it was an important thing to write, but all we can go on is what it looks like on the page, and what it looks like is trying to activate reactions in people with out-of-context controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assigning blame and guilt is pointless. Just look at how well it has worked to motivate the US to change. That is to say, not at all. The only thing moving the needle is renewables and nuclear generating power more cheaply than fossil fuels, so it becomes stupid to not switch to them even if you have no regard for the long term health of the environment.
It's not about assigning blame. Per capita emissions give us a better idea of which groups of people require the largest change in their lifestyle in order to hit net zero. The current numbers suggest that the typical person in the US will have to do a lot more to hit net-zero than the typical person in China. Obviously, you can do better and estimate per capita emissions for each province/state/city or by wealth lev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The earth doesn't give a shit about per capita, and us and eu are net reducing CO2 emissions since 2014 (even during trump I)
US: 335M / 5,000M ton / 15 ton Indonesia: 275M / 650M ton / 2.3 ton Pakistan: 240M / 225M ton / 1 ton Nigeria: 220M / 110M ton / 0.5 ton Brazil: 215M / 475M ton / 2.2 ton I can go on and on about the countries that are emitting less than the US. People and animals live in areas that are liveable. So countries near the equator and fertile countries will always be more populous. So how else do you propose we compare co…
dCO2/dt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a gross violation of human rights, along with eugenics. https://tgeu.org/human-rights-victory-european-court-of-huma...
Depends on if one agrees with that ECtHR judgment. Considering that Article 8 of the ECHR is framed as a negative right (as in freedom from coercion and interference): > Right to respect for private and family life > 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. > 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except suc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is saying that LGBT advocacy/public exposure (what LGBT "propaganda" have you seen?) results in caging. Isn't that worse? How is caging better than negative opinions?
What caging? He didn't say anything about any caging. Did you reply to the correct comment?
Do you think this is a polite suggestion from the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A huge portion of China's emissions come from making things for people that aren't in China. The argument is that if a Chinese factory makes only widgets used in the US, those emissions from the Chinese factory are probably more accurately counted as US emissions. Its like saying that you are 0 emissions because you have an electric car with no tailpipe while ignoring where the electricity is coming from.
The counter argument is that they'd have mass unemployment and would be in poverty without it. Virtually all rapid modern industrialization is reliant on exporting to foreign markets so characteizing it as American emissions is largely a misomer as it is really global emissions.
Whether Chinese workers benefit economically from manufacturing exports doesn't change the fact that when a US consumer buys a product made in China, we could reasonably count those manufacturing emissions as US consumption-based emissions rather than Chinese production-based emissions.
This is really a question of "but for" causation: but for US consumer demand for these products, would these specific manufacturing emissions have occurred? If the answer is no, then there's a strong case for counting them as US emissions regardless of where the factory happens to be located.
Your point about global emissions sidesteps the question entirely. Of course all emissions are ultimately global in their climate impact, but for policy and measurement purposes we still need accounting frameworks. The question is whether production-based or consumption-based accounting gives us a more accurate picture for policy decisions.
The unemployment and poverty argument, while valid for other discussions, doesn't really bear on which accounting method better reflects responsibility for emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a good argument for America having been able to do all it did despite being a democracy without a strong central government, not because of it. Look around the world and see how many countries managed to achieve similar success using the same liberal principles? Most of Europe became rich under imperialist, authoritarian governments not with their current system. I would love to see a good counter argument th…
> Most of Europe became rich under imperialist, authoritarian governments not with their current system Europe prospered under democratic governments after the second world war. My particular region of Germany was rural, agrarian and piss poor before the war. Now it is an industry hub and one of the richest regions in Germany, all thanks to a democratic government, which prioritised development of rural areas. The we…
Also, Europe dominated the world for a couple of hundred years before the Great War. Some parts of Europe may have been poor during that time, but compared to the rest of the world I do think it was a whole lot better.
Japan was incredibly rich in the beginning of the 20th century - and it was definitely not a democracy. Australia, Canada and NZ are all part of the ex-British Empire and I would say that's what made them prosperous, not their political system.
South Korea rode on the back of US support, like Japan after the war, but I do agree they did that while being mostly democratic.
Uruguay has just very recently become a nice place due to basically a single guy! That president, Jose Mujica, was such a legend! And a big critic of capitalism , by the way.
Taiwan was what we used to call the "Asian Tigers" that became rich in an incredibly fast manner... I don't know that you can attribute that to a political system at all: Singapore was and is a dictatorship and is perhaps the best example of Asian Tiger - it became richer than Australia in like 20 years!
All in all: you do not convince me. You do not seem to understand what made those countries rich in my opinion and you haven't really reflected on it if you really think that democracy was the common theme.
EDIT: Taiwan is a tiny island, China is a huge country. The GDP percapita of Shanghai and Beijing is about the same as Taiwan... Hong Kong and Macau, also part of China, have much larger GDP/pc still.