Donald Trump and US politics

"

morbo wrote:

Let's check the the two biggest polluters (source):

China - Has 23.75% share of greenhouse gas emissions
USA - has 12.10% share of greenhouse gas emissions

...and what they pledged to achieve according to Paris agreement:

China - A peak in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030... and to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% of 2005 levels by 2030
USA - 26-28% domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 compared to 2005

So, if I understand this correctly, the biggest polluter China is allowed to continue increasing their carbon dioxide emissions that will hopefully peak in 2030 and only then revert the process, while USA has to start reducing CO2 emissions now?

Moreover the Chinese pledge is a function of their GDP, while US & EU is flat? So china can continue producing cheap toxic knockoffs and sell them to us cheaper than we can sell our highly green, but also highly taxed and thus uncompetitive technological wonders?

What makes you think that asking China to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to pre 2005 levels and having the United States do the same thing are equivalent in any way? Do you realize that China's GDP has increased over 3x since then (it's like 8k USD per capita now) while the United states has increased by around 26% (it's about 55-56k per capita now). Those metrics aren't perfect, but they do give a sense of the standard of living in those countries and the relative differences in carbon dioxide emissions you would expect. You're asking for much harsher cuts for a country with a much much worse standard of living compared to America, which is obviously much more able to afford it.

The idea is China need to rich and technologically developed first and foremost. Countries that are rich are more powerful and influential which in turn mean they can do more. Paris agreement is voluntary. It is more like your new year resolution.

Oh boy. China the new leader in globalization and climate change.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Also many European countries and the US became rich and influential by burning coal. They have to do more.

Saudi Arabia has become rich & influential only because of fossil fuel. Should they do more? China has been burning coal like mad in the last decades, but we need to wait for some sort of "social justice equality", before they are held equally responsible?

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

The average standard of life in China is much lower.

And yet they are the biggest polluter. I thought global warming was very urgent, "California under water in 2020" type of urgent... Apparently it's not, we can wait for China (and India, and south Asia, and Africa, and...) to get a better standard of living before they stop polluting.

Maybe its obvious why this deal, like Kyoto, will be a fiasco, with or without Trump.

"

deathflower wrote:

The idea is China need to rich and technologically developed first and foremost. Countries that are rich are more powerful and influential which in turn mean they can do more.

Catch 22. You must first pollute, to become rich, to do more about pollution.

The relevant metrics to the discussion are either greenhouse gas emissions per capita or per unit of gdp. Here's some data for the first one from wikipedia. Sort by tons of carbon dioxide equivalent with land use change if you want to be really objective or discard the land use effect if you think that's not fair or accurately estimated. Higher numbers are bad of course in this context but in either case China is actually doing much better than the United States.

You could argue that this is not fair because shitty countries with no economy will look better, and that's true. Here's a link showing the data in relation to gdp, which is probably the better metric to use anyway:
(also wikipedia) Sort by GDP per Emissions (in US dollars per ton) and you can see that now China looks really bad compared to the United States. China has promised to work on this metric and is probably the best way for the country to have a meaningful impact.

"

morbo wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

The idea is China need to rich and technologically developed first and foremost. Countries that are rich are more powerful and influential which in turn mean they can do more.

Catch 22. You must first pollute, to become rich, to do more about pollution.

Peer pressure OP. Or you don't understand what voluntary mean. Or you don't realise they can back out of Paris agreement and don't do anything, just like America. China is its own sovereignty.

Edit: Wealth make a huge different if You do not understand what the different between not having America in the agreement compare to ̶A̶f̶g̶h̶a̶n̶i̶s̶t̶a̶n̶ Syria.

If it's an unenforceable, non-binding deal, then it's little more than virtue signaling. The deal will be silently ignored in favor of economy, especially by countries who are trying to "catch up".

In the end (western) citizens can voluntarily do more against consumption & pollution, than our governments can do by extorting tax money from us. Work on your consumerism zombie rabies & your electricity / fossil fuel / waste footprint.

"

morbo wrote:

If it's an unenforceable, non-binding deal, then it's little more than virtue signaling. The deal will be silently ignored in favor of economy, especially by countries who are trying to "catch up".

In the end (western) citizens can voluntarily do more against consumption & pollution, than our governments can do by extorting tax money from us. Work on your consumerism zombie rabies & your electricity / fossil fuel / waste footprint.

What the citizens does to help the environment and what the government does to help the environment aren't mutually exclusive.

"

morbo wrote:

If it's an unenforceable, non-binding deal, then it's little more than virtue signaling. The deal will be silently ignored in favor of economy, especially by countries who are trying to "catch up".

In the end (western) citizens can voluntarily do more against consumption & pollution, than our governments can do by extorting tax money from us. Work on your consumerism zombie rabies & your electricity / fossil fuel / waste footprint.

It is precisely virtue signalling, by means of income redistribution:

"

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Premier Paolo Gentiloni said in a joint statement Thursday that they take note “with regret” the U.S. decision to pull out of the 2015 agreement.

The three leaders say they regard the accord as “a cornerstone in the cooperation between our countries, for effectively and timely tackling climate change.”

They added that the course charted by the accord is “irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated.”

Macron, Merkel and Gentiloni say they remain committed to the deal and will “step up efforts” to support the poorest and most threatened nations.

https://apnews.com/0da0d9b1f90c427eb15d7781f8c84fee/The-Latest:-Germany%27s-Merkel-regrets-Trump-decision-on-pact?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Nothing there about rising sea levels or what have you. Just raw, SJW moral superiority and economic covetousness by proxy. =^[.]^=

"

deathflower wrote:

What the citizens does to help the environment and what the government does to help the environment aren't mutually exclusive.

If the government takes 100 USD from you every month, for your carbon footprint tax, would you still go out of your way to care about your personal consumption & pollution, or just assume the "damage you cause" is already covered by the tax and you can carry on with your usual life?

Its the difference between personal responsibility and socialized responsibility. Usually when something is socialized (eg. school system), most people feel like they are released from personal responsibility (eg. participating in their kids education).

Note that the gov is also heavily subject to corruption, so that $100 might not achieve anything but lining the pockets of some bureaucrats or "special interests", while you keep on thinking that you actually helped saving the Earth.