5 ms·

>How callous and sheltered do you have to be to say something like that? Keep the dialogue civil. It turns out that industrializing a society creates a lot of

>How callous and sheltered do you have to be to say something like that? Keep the dialogue civil. It turns out that industrializing a society creates a lot of pollution. That pollution, as we've recently found out, is responsible for "the massive humanitarian crises and greater suffering" we are going to experience as impoverished nations continue to industrialize (ie. get lifted out of poverty). See: IPCC

antidesitter 8y ago
Your premise is wrong. This is called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104013 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195708 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... The solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even more true once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.
- biglenny 8y ago
  You don't understand what you are talking about. EKC works with pollutants that have short term, acute consequences. Think sulfates, nitrates, carbon monoxide, etc. EKC has not been proven true with pollutants whose effects are less concentrated and whose effects take longer to realize (CH4, CO2, etc). The catastrophes I'm referring to have little to do with the paper you cited.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    According to https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Presentation19-The-RelationshipBetweenCarbonDioxideEmissionsandEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/0..., it seems that there is a positive correlation between GDP per capita and carbon emissions per capita at first, but the correlation stops after that and becomes neutral. In the UK and US, for example, carbon emissions per capita remained roughly constant over a 50 year period even as GDP per capita increased significantly.
    - biglenny 8y ago
      Area under the curve.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        What do you mean?

antidesitter 8y ago

Your premise is wrong. This is called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104013 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195708 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... The solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even more true once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.

biglenny 8y ago
You don't understand what you are talking about. EKC works with pollutants that have short term, acute consequences. Think sulfates, nitrates, carbon monoxide, etc. EKC has not been proven true with pollutants whose effects are less concentrated and whose effects take longer to realize (CH4, CO2, etc). The catastrophes I'm referring to have little to do with the paper you cited.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  According to https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Presentation19-The-RelationshipBetweenCarbonDioxideEmissionsandEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/0..., it seems that there is a positive correlation between GDP per capita and carbon emissions per capita at first, but the correlation stops after that and becomes neutral. In the UK and US, for example, carbon emissions per capita remained roughly constant over a 50 year period even as GDP per capita increased significantly.
  - biglenny 8y ago
    Area under the curve.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      What do you mean?