8 ms·

Unfortunately, the OP's mindset is that of many Westerners. Currently, the average Indian citizen emits half the greenhouse gas of the global per capita averag

by awuji 4y ago

Unfortunately, the OP's mindset is that of many Westerners. Currently, the average Indian citizen emits half the greenhouse gas of the global per capita average. To argue that they deserve less than their share is blatent discrimination. Meanwhile, China has invested more than double what the US invested into renewable energy sources over the past decade, and more than all of Europe combined. And this is all while the average Chinese citizen emits 10 metric tons less of greenhouse gasses than the average American. But all you hear in the west is how the bad coal plants in India and China are causing global warming when China already has 1 million more GWh of renewable energy than the US. The fact is western lifestyles are not sustainable, especially American lifestyles. Sources: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29752/GTR2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29752/... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenho... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewab...

djohnston 4y ago
But even if US citizens dropped per capita consumption to that of avg Chinese citizen, it wouldn't make a difference if the absolute volume of emissions into the atmosphere from China still dwarfed the impact of that change in the US. The point is that, while restricting lifestyles and carbon emissions in the West is fair, it's ultimately pointless w.r.t climate change.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >It wouldn't make a difference if the absolute volume of emissions into the atmosphere First off, it literally would make a difference in the the absolute volume. 7 tons/person is objectively less than 15tons/person. IF your point is simply that the US can't stop climate change all by itself, then of course you are correct. Climate change is not a binary situation. it can be more or less extreme. Do you throw your trash on the street just because someone else did? Less trash is obviously better than more trash.
nradov 4y ago
Politically it's going to be a tough sell in the US to convince average Americans that they should sacrifice their standard of living so that China can get ahead. What percentage of Americans do you think will vote in favor of that policy? Meanwhile China has nuclear weapons pointed at us, and seems to have plenty of money available for a rapid military build up.
- 8note 4y ago
  Does china have nuclear weapons pointed at the US? Isn't it the other way around?
thehappypm 4y ago
Per capita barely matters. There are no participation prizes here. We need to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, period.
- amusedcyclist 4y ago
  Yes we need to decrease CO2, so the people who emit the most need to reduce the most. Nations don't emit CO2, people do

by awuji 4y ago

djohnston 4y ago

But even if US citizens dropped per capita consumption to that of avg Chinese citizen, it wouldn't make a difference if the absolute volume of emissions into the atmosphere from China still dwarfed the impact of that change in the US. The point is that, while restricting lifestyles and carbon emissions in the West is fair, it's ultimately pointless w.r.t climate change.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>It wouldn't make a difference if the absolute volume of emissions into the atmosphere First off, it literally would make a difference in the the absolute volume. 7 tons/person is objectively less than 15tons/person. IF your point is simply that the US can't stop climate change all by itself, then of course you are correct. Climate change is not a binary situation. it can be more or less extreme. Do you throw your trash on the street just because someone else did? Less trash is obviously better than more trash.

nradov 4y ago

Politically it's going to be a tough sell in the US to convince average Americans that they should sacrifice their standard of living so that China can get ahead. What percentage of Americans do you think will vote in favor of that policy? Meanwhile China has nuclear weapons pointed at us, and seems to have plenty of money available for a rapid military build up.

8note 4y ago
Does china have nuclear weapons pointed at the US? Isn't it the other way around?

thehappypm 4y ago

Per capita barely matters. There are no participation prizes here. We need to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, period.

amusedcyclist 4y ago
Yes we need to decrease CO2, so the people who emit the most need to reduce the most. Nations don't emit CO2, people do