That is a lame excuse, mostly used by people from developed countries that are responsible for the issue, so you dodge responsibility and also try to put blame on the developing country why you are continuing screwing the environment. It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing his children too (I am thinking especially at coal plants and cars that have effects locally too, so cleaning yup your house means you will have healthier population and less CO2)
This is a poor metaphor. It's more akin to having a family history of child abuse, trying to stop the cycle, explaining to your neighbor why it's bad, and then your neighbor saying "well, your grandpa beat the shit out of your dad, so we get to beat our kids too!"
And of course, the largest producer of CO2 isn't the US as you imply, it's China.
Additionally the idea that deploying new technologies equates to economic self harm is absurd. The price per kilowatt hour of renewable energy has been dropping continuously for decades in a pattern similar to moores law. Soon renewable energy will be so much cheaper than fossil fuels that it will be similar to what the discovery of crude oil deposits did to the whale oil industry. Betting on fossil fuels from an economic perspective is stupid as hell in 2022 and risking the survival of worldwide ecosystems and society on that bet is literally the stupidest thing I can think of people advocating for.
China is a problem. We absolutely need China to reduce their emissions much more aggressively than they are. Instead of using them as an excuse to sleepwalk humanity towards potential catastrophe we should be reducing our own emissions so as to have a legitimate position from which to argue about what China should be doing while using our significant economic leverage to incentivize China to reduce their emissions.
It's not like china is sitting there burning coal for no reason. And all those ships are going to ports in the US and the like.
Of course this is all a shared responsibility, but let's not act like all of those "CO2 emissions by country" calculations are not extremely fudged by how consumption, manufacturing, and recycling happen in various parts of the world.
Or we can just agree that this metaphor doesn't work.
Only if you ignore per capita and history.
A better analogy, Someone was selling meat, 50% horse and 5-% rabbit , he was using q horse at 1 rabbit ratio, this are your stats , bullshit.
>It's more akin to having a family history of child abuse, trying to stop the cycle
Except you are trying not to stop the cyucle and finding s shitty excuse, I will continue poisoning this city with coal related toxic waste because China has even worse pollution. I should continue throwing plastic garbage in the river and kill our river life because the neighboring country/cities does the same.
To be clear, there are intermediate actions they could and should take, such as phase out of coal in favor of natural gas.
ACs, Refrigerators, and cars are still unavailable to the lower middle class. Even the middle class can only have 2 out of those 3.
A large chunk of public transport in the big cities in India and China is CNG and electric.
I guess now we're at the "okay okay fine, it's a problem, and humans are causing it. But we should still do nothing to fix it, because... China?"
Screaming right past the acceptance stage and in for another loop of denial.
But the US could go to zero and if China and India don't lower emission it won't matter.
Tragedy of the commons and all.
The proper framing is we need to reduce emissions and so does China and India so how do we facilitate that. The answer is to 1.) Reduce our own emissions to have the moral basis to push other countries to reduce their emissions. 2.) Tax imported goods based on the emissions created in their production. Incentivizing foreign countries to reduce their emissions to be competitive in US markets. 3.) Lobby other countries to do the same using the diplomatic means we have at our disposal.
Scientists have already said if we stop all emissions tomorrow, across the globe, we’re still hitting catastrophic climate change.
The boat to fix this left decades ago.
Beyond the point of no return now. Time to start moving to higher ground.
> But the US could go to zero and if China and India don't lower emission it won't matter.
Because if the US cut its emissions by half, the standard of living of US citizens (and its associated carbon cost) will become about the same as in China, and will still be a whopping 3.5 times better than India.
Looking at total emissions is actually meaningless, as reducing emissions (significantly) necessarily involves lowering the standard of living - less meat, less transportation, more expensive electricity, less stuff, less construction, less heating etc. The US and EU have a lot of place for reducing our CO2 by reducing our standards of living than India (which produces less CO2 per person than Sweden or any other country in the EU).
Sure, there is some amount of CO2 reduction that can be achieved by green power, but nowhere near enough at the scale and speed needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
But, given how grave and urgent the situation is getting, there is no way to convert all curent energy generation to green energy AND increase energy generation capacity to keep up with normal economic growth AND increase it many times over to electrify all transportation AND electrify all heating. And even if we were to succeed in all that, that only covers about half of US emissions at best - the other half is coming from agriculture, industry and residential emissions. Not to mention the massive emissions that are happening in China but ultimately serving the US market.
It's simply not possible to achieve the necessary time frames (net 0 in 20 years) without significantly reducing economic activity and standards of living in the short term - then growing back to current activity and standards of living in the longer term.
Not to mention, much of China's emissions are actually coming from its factories supplying the US and Europe with goods. If we just give up on buying some of the goods, emissions will go down.
Finally, to call any measures on combatting climate change that were enacted anywhere in the world "overzealous" is laughable. The only measure stat can actually put a dent in the ever increasing temperatures are those that will come with economic contraction - not just stopping the growth, but actually downsize our economies for a decade or two - but this is completely unthinkable to liberals.
The best measures that are being taken today would have helped if they had been taken in the 1960s when the problem was first understood. Instead, we sacrificed the future for economic growth in the present, and are now doing minor improvements (wind and solar, electric cars) that will barely even reduce the rhythm at which emissions are increasing.
Similarly, you can send every person in the US back to the stone age, and you're still going to have about 80% of the problem unless you can get other countries to join along.
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
Emissions per capita are relevant if you want to discuss a realistic expectation of how low a country's emissions can go. They are also directly relevant: every citizen of a country must be fed, must be given electricity, must use transportation, and must consume goods - each of these cost CO2 in quite direct proportion to the number of citizens.
For example, China has a lot of room for improvement, but India does not, as it's already at lower emissions per capita than half the world (much lower than any EU country, for example).
Global warming is not exclusively the problem of the global south. Poor people in China or India have the same rights to affordable electricity as people in Norway or Germany, which have higher emissions than China per person, despite the fact that they have outsourced plenty of emissions to China.
Overall, if say we needed to reduce emissions by 50%, countries with higher emissions per capita will likely have to reduce MORE than that, as China and particularly India would incur much more harm to their hundreds of millions of citizens than Germany or the USA if they were to significantly reduce emissions.
Forgive the aggressive editing of your quote, but multiplying emissions per capita times the number of citizens is exactly emissions per country.
> want to discuss a realistic expectation of how low a country's emissions can go
Theoretically, most countries emissions could go to zero with nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and/or geothermal. You can dive into the touchy feely stuff about people's quality of life, but it's easy to imagine a high quality of life in a country that went pure nuclear (zero added CO2). No new technology (battery storage) needed. However, if we're being realistic, you shouldn't expect any country to change much at all, and you'll find out how many people fear nuclear more than they fear fossil fuels.
In the link I posted above there are 15 sovereign nations which produce a higher CO2 per capita than the US. (As an aside, several of those countries have a strong interest in selling oil, so you aren't likely to sway them.) If you treat per capita as the important metric, and you successfully convince those 15 countries to go pure solar/nuclear/whatever, you've solved less than 5% of the problem. Lock your heels and stick to your guns, refuse to admit you're wrong, but this is an inefficient approach.
Contrast that with converting just China, the US, and India, to wind/geothermal/whatever and you've solved 50%.
I think this is the bad assumption that is causing you to think emissions per capita are not important. Power generation is only a fraction of the problem. Most clearly, GHG emissions from cows and pigs will not go down even if all electricity energy is produced with 0 emissions. Incidentally, India's widespread vegetarianism may be a big component of how its emissions are so low.
Then, transportation will not magically become electric even if the whole grid is green. Perhaps cars are a solved problem, but electric trucks, electric air planes, and electric cargo boats are definitely not solved problem, not for anywhere near today's costs.
There are of course numerous other industrial processes which emit massive amounts of CO2 that can't be electrified at all - cement production, smelting, plastic recycling, many chemical processes etc.
Also, new nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind are not competitive with already built coal or natural gas power plants - so moving to a new entirely green grid would massively increase the costs of electricity, which in turn will increase the costs of basically all consumer goods.
And while many in the USA and Europe could afford to pay twice the price of electricity and all basic necessities (though nowhere close to all), few would in India or China.
Now, would it be important and good to pressure and fund China, US and India to replace what they can of their electrical grids with nuclear and other green energies? Absolutely! But it only addresses a small part of the problem, and does so at tremendous cost.
Edit: electricity generation accounts for ~50% of China's GHG emissions, ~35% of India's and ~25% of the US's. So even entirely greenifying their grids will not reduce world GHG emissions by anywhere near 50%.
> Also, new nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind are not competitive with already built coal or natural gas power plants [...] costs
While this is completely true, if you stick to financial justification for changes, you aren't going to succeed anywhere. If any of the other methods were more cost effective in the short term, they'd already have switched.
I doubt it's fruitful to talk about any of this. You seem pretty certain you're right, and I doubt I could change your mind on anything.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that no one country, or even small group of countries, can stop climate change alone, at least not without causing massive harm to their citizens. The entire world needs to participate, and countries that are producing the most GHG for the least amount of people need to do so most of all (though of course once you get to really really small countries, say Luxembourg, other factors become dominant).
My point is that India, particularly, can't realistically reduce emissions (without harming their citizens tremendously in the short term) by more than a few percents. Meanwhile, Europe, the Middle Eastern oil states, Russia, and the USA have much more room to reduce their emissions more drastically, and, combined, they will have a bigger effect, with much less harm to their own people. China absolutely needs to do more as well, and for them in particular green energy generation is lower hanging fruit (since so much of their emissions are coming from this).
The goal of this whole thing is to move as fast as possible to ensure the planet remains livable 100 years from now, without sacrificing poor peasants' already meager lifestyles in China and India (and anywhere else) today.
And now sure, an argument could be made that rather than building nucelar reactors in France, French money could be better invested in building nuclear reactors in China - that is, that the world's limited capacity for building green energy should be best invested in the places that need power the most while currently having the worst way of getting it. I would be amenable to such an argument, though I think it's more utopic than my previous ones.
We seem to be going through stages of climate denialism: Climate change doesn't exist -> it does exist but it isn't man made -> it is man made but it's too expensive and disruptive to fix -> ???
This is not true. We are all in the same frying pan and I don't know why people keep insisting that the others don't understand it. Of course they do. They have political pressures from industrialists and deniers just as we do here that might prevent immediate action, but they are not fundamentally different. Quite the opposite.
Either way, why do we have to wait for others to move first. We know there's a problem, we know there are solutions, get to it.
That being said I see no reason why doing any of the things mainstream scientists and economists are calling for would in any way diminish anyone's quality of life. If anything it will improve quality of life at the very least by reducing air pollution and it will prevent drastic reductions in quality of life in the coming decades from the effects of unchecked global warming.
I really don't know where this crap even comes from. Like we get x amount of energy from fossil fuels. Therefore we must reduce energy usage by that much? Do you think that's what we're advocating for?
Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. As such, the climate experiment will inevitably continue unabated, despite any of the self-damaging choices made by the developed world.
Additionally, our ability to actually combat the acute impacts of climate change (i.e. construction of flood barriers, land reclamation, movement of people out of flood-prone areas) could easily be actively hampered by overzealous limits on human development associated with attempt to reduce emissions. In other words, this is a nuanced issue and we have little choice but to press onwards.