agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,041 
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 19, 2023 17:34:54 GMT
Hmmm... some poetic licence there. I don't think anybody is suggesting that rather disingenuous interpretation. What I said was three of the worst offenders are at least trying to do something positive about it, while three continue to insist on rowing in the wrong direction. Now the problem has been highlighted, each country's starting point is largely irrelevant, it's the direction you row from that point on which matters. China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU, and are increasing year on year, whereas the EU is decreasing. You'd categorise China/Russia as the good guys? So it's a case of 'B*gger you jack i'm alright'
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,615
Likes: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 18:06:40 GMT
Hmmm... some poetic licence there. I don't think anybody is suggesting that rather disingenuous interpretation. What I said was three of the worst offenders are at least trying to do something positive about it, while three continue to insist on rowing in the wrong direction. Now the problem has been highlighted, each country's starting point is largely irrelevant, it's the direction you row from that point on which matters. China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU, and are increasing year on year, whereas the EU is decreasing. You'd categorise China/Russia as the good guys? So it's a case of 'B*gger you jack i'm alright' No, I thought my meaning was clear that what matters most is not where you start from, but your intended direction of travel. Countries can't influence the position they happened to find themselves in at the start of this process. Some will be big polluters and some small. What's relevant now is how they react to the problem. Some have reacted by cutting back their pollution, others have gone the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 19, 2023 19:07:40 GMT
So it's a case of 'B*gger you jack i'm alright' No, I thought my meaning was clear that what matters most is not where you start from, but your intended direction of travel. Countries can't influence the position they happened to find themselves in at the start of this process. Some will be big polluters and some small. What's relevant now is how they react to the problem. Some have reacted by cutting back their pollution, others have gone the other way. Because in relative terms they have "started" by being dirt poor, and improving your economic position means increasing your carbon emissions. But those in their already gilded economic towers are entitled to look down and say "but we got here first, how dare you aspire to what we have. Your place is down there". I personally find that a morally bankrupt unjustifiable stance. Others of course may not. EDITS: Minor
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,694
Likes: 2,977
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 19, 2023 19:12:52 GMT
No, I thought my meaning was clear that what matters most is not where you start from, but your intended direction of travel. Countries can't influence the position they happened to find themselves in at the start of this process. Some will be big polluters and some small. What's relevant now is how they react to the problem. Some have reacted by cutting back their pollution, others have gone the other way. Because in relative terms they have "started" by being dirt poor, and improving your economic position means increasing your carbon emissions. But those in their already gilded economic towers are entitled to look down and say "but we got here first, now dare you aspire to what we have". I personally find that a morally bankrupt stance. Others of course may not. Has to be one of those rare moments where I agree with you in spades.... 
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,615
Likes: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 19:48:15 GMT
No, I thought my meaning was clear that what matters most is not where you start from, but your intended direction of travel. Countries can't influence the position they happened to find themselves in at the start of this process. Some will be big polluters and some small. What's relevant now is how they react to the problem. Some have reacted by cutting back their pollution, others have gone the other way. Because in relative terms they have "started" by being dirt poor, and improving your economic position means increasing your carbon emissions. But those in their already gilded economic towers are entitled to look down and say "but we got here first, how dare you aspire to what we have. Your place is down there". I personally find that a morally bankrupt unjustifiable stance. Others of course may not. EDITS: Minor If you support those aspirations, that those hugely populous nations have every right to match our standard, you can kiss goodbye to all that Antarctic ice you are worried about. You need to tread carefully concerning what constitutes morally bankrupt unjustifiable.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,041
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 19, 2023 20:57:38 GMT
Because in relative terms they have "started" by being dirt poor, and improving your economic position means increasing your carbon emissions. But those in their already gilded economic towers are entitled to look down and say "but we got here first, how dare you aspire to what we have. Your place is down there". I personally find that a morally bankrupt unjustifiable stance. Others of course may not. EDITS: Minor If you support those aspirations, that those hugely populous nations have every right to match our standard, you can kiss goodbye to all that Antarctic ice you are worried about. You need to tread carefully concerning what constitutes morally bankrupt unjustifiable. So are you saying that an African farmer who is living in poverty shouldn't swap his oxen for a tractor (which would greatly improve the efficiency of his farm) because it will increase his carbon footprint?
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,615
Likes: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 21:17:30 GMT
If you support those aspirations, that those hugely populous nations have every right to match our standard, you can kiss goodbye to all that Antarctic ice you are worried about. You need to tread carefully concerning what constitutes morally bankrupt unjustifiable. So are you saying that an African farmer who is living in poverty shouldn't swap his oxen for a tractor (which would greatly improve the efficiency of his farm) because it will increase his carbon footprint? I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). It's the macro-politics that matter here, not micro-. It's for each country to develop its own policy and mankind can only hope the big players fall into line and behave in a responsible manner. Unless it's already too late, as some scientists now believe.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,998
Likes: 5,136
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 20, 2023 6:43:30 GMT
Because in relative terms they have "started" by being dirt poor, and improving your economic position means increasing your carbon emissions. But those in their already gilded economic towers are entitled to look down and say "but we got here first, how dare you aspire to what we have. Your place is down there". I personally find that a morally bankrupt unjustifiable stance. Others of course may not. If you support those aspirations, that those hugely populous nations have every right to match our standard, you can kiss goodbye to all that Antarctic ice you are worried about. You need to tread carefully concerning what constitutes morally bankrupt unjustifiable. So are you saying that an African farmer who is living in poverty shouldn't swap his oxen for a tractor (which would greatly improve the efficiency of his farm) because it will increase his carbon footprint? I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). You appear to be saying EXACTLY that. Why does a relatively small proportion of the world population have some divine right to a better way of life than the others? Just because we got here first, and made a mess of the place for everybody else? You are unwilling to compromise your way of life to a globally sustainable one, and you deny others the same opportunities you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 20, 2023 8:43:25 GMT
So are you saying that an African farmer who is living in poverty shouldn't swap his oxen for a tractor (which would greatly improve the efficiency of his farm) because it will increase his carbon footprint? It's the macro-politics that matter here, not micro-. It's for each country to develop its own policy and mankind can only hope the big players fall into line and behave in a responsible manner. Unless it's already too late, as some scientists now believe. but the point is the outcome of what you are saying is pretty much exactly that.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,041
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 20, 2023 9:13:49 GMT
So are you saying that an African farmer who is living in poverty shouldn't swap his oxen for a tractor (which would greatly improve the efficiency of his farm) because it will increase his carbon footprint? I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). It's the macro-politics that matter here, not micro-. It's for each country to develop its own policy and mankind can only hope the big players fall into line and behave in a responsible manner. Unless it's already too late, as some scientists now believe. I think you're in need of a big reality check. No government in the world is going to risk economic development so they can be top of the 'least poluting country' charts. May be there's a better way. How about the amount of polution you can create is inversely proportional to the state of your economy?
And if the experts are correct and it's already too late, then what's the point of trying?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,621
|
Post by keitha on Sept 20, 2023 10:28:08 GMT
I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). It's the macro-politics that matter here, not micro-. It's for each country to develop its own policy and mankind can only hope the big players fall into line and behave in a responsible manner. Unless it's already too late, as some scientists now believe. I think you're in need of a big reality check. No government in the world is going to risk economic development so they can be top of the 'least polluting country' charts. May be there's a better way. How about the amount of pollution you can create is inversely proportional to the state of your economy?
And if the experts are correct and it's already too late, then what's the point of trying?
if we turn the gas off under the pot of water with us frogs in it some may survive, some may survive if we turn it down so it slowly cools, none of us will survive if we let the pot boil we will be frog soup. so I'd rather we didn't let the pot boil what we do is let the poor African farmer have a solar powered tractor that he shares with his neighbours. one of the issues in the developed world etc is far to much machinery is single purpose and is used for a few weeks a year. How often does a farmer plough his fields, or use a combine.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,621
|
Post by keitha on Sept 20, 2023 10:38:06 GMT
I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). It's the macro-politics that matter here, not micro-. It's for each country to develop its own policy and mankind can only hope the big players fall into line and behave in a responsible manner. Unless it's already too late, as some scientists now believe. I think you're in need of a big reality check. No government in the world is going to risk economic development so they can be top of the 'least poluting country' charts. May be there's a better way. How about the amount of polution you can create is inversely proportional to the state of your economy?
And if the experts are correct and it's already too late, then what's the point of trying?
I'd rather try and have a planet that is habitable for my great grandkids, than be in a position where we produce more and more pollution cooling houses, building ever higher sea defences, and the average person gets poorer and poorer as a result of the Governments having to tax more to pay for projects to mitigate the problems. lets start with a few simple things like eating the food that is produced not binning it because its a bit limp or not perfect. Eating seasonal not flying green beans in from Kenya at Christmas. build stuff that lasts My neighbours have only been in the house 2 years they are now on the 3rd Kitchen, they have also had 2 new beds , and replaced the 3 piece suite, usage of resources at that sort of level is unacceptable. the same when i hear people bleating that their partner is mean cos (s)he won't let then turn the heating up to 25.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,606
Likes: 1,737
|
Post by benaj on Sept 20, 2023 10:51:46 GMT
Interesting. Top of the chart, British Virgin Islands. 987t per km2 per year. Meanwhile, Uk is well below world’s average 73, only 1.564t per km2 per year, just a bit higher than its main importer Does it mean the other developing country producing almost everything for the world is doing quite a good job or even better job than the developed country like the UK? EDit: My bad, I have been misled by the table. Figures are quoted in Co2 per Km2 per year, no wonder the figure for the middle kingdom doesn’t make sense. Rest of the world have almost reduced their emissions from 2017.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,041
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 20, 2023 11:34:04 GMT
I think you're in need of a big reality check. No government in the world is going to risk economic development so they can be top of the 'least polluting country' charts. May be there's a better way. How about the amount of pollution you can create is inversely proportional to the state of your economy?
And if the experts are correct and it's already too late, then what's the point of trying?
if we turn the gas off under the pot of water with us frogs in it some may survive, some may survive if we turn it down so it slowly cools, none of us will survive if we let the pot boil we will be frog soup. so I'd rather we didn't let the pot boil what we do is let the poor African farmer have a solar powered tractor that he shares with his neighbours. one of the issues in the developed world etc is far to much machinery is single purpose and is used for a few weeks a year. How often does a farmer plough his fields, or use a combine. Hell no. 2 basic problems with this:
- he can't afford a brand new bright and shiny tractor, only a 50 year old John Deere
- you've forgotton rule number one of working in a third world country. Give a man something new and if he can't eat it or have sex with it he'll break it (and how far will it be to the nearest solar powered tractor repair facility, and what will repairs cost)
In the third world the lower the tech the better the chance of it working for more than 10 minutes.
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,615
Likes: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 20, 2023 11:53:35 GMT
I'm saying nothing of the sort (but I think you know that). You appear to be saying EXACTLY that. Why does a relatively small proportion of the world population have some divine right to a better way of life than the others? Just because we got here first, and made a mess of the place for everybody else? You are unwilling to compromise your way of life to a globally sustainable one, and you deny others the same opportunities you have. As usual, you've made that up, I've never suggested or even implied that. What I've said is I very much approve of those big polluting countries/groups (US, Europe, Japan) who've taken and continue to take steps to reduce their output, while I disapprove of those big players (China, Russia, India) who show no interest, but continue to increase theirs. It seems particularly wrong that two of those, China and Russia, produce far more fossil CO 2 per capita than we in the UK or Europe do... yet still insist on their increasingly upward trajectory. It's China getting mankind into dire straits, not the UK, and you are acting here as an apologist for their disgusting level of pollution. I deny others nothing. I've made no comment about the small fry, like the African nations introduced by agent69 , because their output is negligible. Of course they have the right to a fair share and who could argue against that, but they are manifestly not the threat to mankind posed by the likes of China, where the focus needs to be. And don't give me this virtue-signalling 'divine right' cobblers when the average Chinese already emits 33% more CO 2 than the average Brit or European. Their distribution of the wealth so created, and the opportunities/better way of life that should flow from that, is a different problem altogether. That they, and India, are obscenely top heavy in billionaires and millionaires and can mount space missions, while the vast majority of their people are as poor as church mice, is down to their leadership and nothing to do with "catching up" in terms of CO 2 output (especially since in China's case they've already comfortably caught up and overtaken...). My country's CO 2 per capita (5.7) is within touching distance of the global average (4.9), and it is steadily decreasing, so my conscience is clear on the matter. We are doing our bit towards global sustainability, and then some, while some of the real big fish are clearly not.
|
|
