Unfortunately we all know that those are not the intended targets of that legislation.

More to the point, and putting ecocide and genocide in a similar ballpark, doesn’t anyone remember Rwanda anymore? Or Srebrenica? (this latter labeled technically as a massacre). Does anyone believe that those atrocities could have been stopped by “harsh words” alone? Or by economic sanctions? They weren’t.

Enforcement in this case means imposition of force, which in an inter-state situation means invasion or, at the very least, a military attack (see Kosovo in ‘99, technically not an invasion).

I personally think it should be one instrument on the table as a matter of last resort, mainly for the purpose of deterrence.

This is a popular assumption, but it is not true. At least, definitely not now:

US and Europe invading multiple countries and international community being chill about it had set a strong enough precedent.

C'mon, NATO had recently updated its doctrines to allow it warfare over climate - we have all the preconditions for fun stuff.

( China followed by US, and India ).

If you adjust by per capita - then all the energy producing countries are top - but then they are emitting for other people - Turkmenistan isn't producing all that energy for domestic consumption.

Easy to point fingers.

It's the consumers, not the producers per se that are the problem.

Irrespective of which party is the proximate cause of energy extraction in Turkmenistan, the large volume leakage of methane according to the article is not an inevitable byproduct of oil drilling. What’s more, the incremental costs of controlling methane emissions are tiny. And finally, consumers couldn’t go re-light methane flares at the drill sites even if they wanted to.

All of the discussions around who is a larger consumer are pointless; the point is that they could be doing more, and at a very small cost to them directly.

If you use consumption based accounting, Luxembourg comes out number 1, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions

I get what you're saying here, something like, "we couldn't change it if we tried" but we wouldn't even if we could. We're fighting a proxy war with Russia right now over access to fossil fuel right now. Releasing tons and tons of CO2 for the right to release more CO2 in the future.

Sounds complex. There are open questions as to whether those regions that open up for farming would have the soil to support it. And whether reduction in rainfall elsewhere in Russia would cancel out the gains. They have already benefited from current warming.

I assure you, no one had noticed anything substantial.

Edit: probably changed to possibly. Downvoted immediately because who knows?

Not exactly. “We just need to offer a bigger carrot than Russia does”

You don't assume that the relationships between the West and the Global South is a clean slate, right?

I agree that western nations could take a page out of China's book and look to having more of a presence in developing and underdeveloped nations, including financing and building infrastructure, but hopefully without seeking leverage (e.g., Sri Lanka.. though the incompetent government only has themselves to blame).

Be careful where you tread with this branch of the law.

Me thinks your biases and agenda is showing...

1. Basic or inherent characteristics of something. What GP is trolling about.

2. The entire global ecosystem and physical phenomena on planet Earth or the Universe at large. What I was talking about.

It's not necessarily different.

Being a major cause of climate change does not only affect humanity, but future generations and all life on Earth as well. It is an order of magnitude worse than genocide.

When a single entity is responsible for it, because of negligence or malice, the punishment should be more draconian than if it "only" caused harm to humanity.