5 ms·
I was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of “global collaborations” seem to always end with the US carry all the water, and the goal from the other
by ethagknight 11mo ago
I was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of “global collaborations” seem to always end with the US carry all the water, and the goal from the other countries perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords.
- estearum 11mo agoWhat about non-proliferation treaties which have prevented the vast majority of countries from bankrupting themselves in an existential sprint to nuclear weapons?
- BoredPositron 11mo agoSay what you want about this treaty but China is running circles around you regarding Paris.
- HFguy 11mo agoWhat point are you trying to make? I'm honestly not sure. Is it that China is polluting a lot? Or a little? That they are making environmental progress? Or none?
- BoredPositron 11mo agoThey they are exceeding their initial commitment. Talking about pollution in your tone is also a bit rich coming from the biggest net polluter in all of history.
- nomel 11mo agoWhat percent difference in reduction do you see if they didn't sign the treaty?
- BoredPositron 11mo agoDoesn't matter they committed to a target and exceed it. We see two countries with stagnation (changes below 1%) and regressions... one is the us.
- nomel 11mo agoI think it does matter. My questions is, was their progress in any way related to the treaty, or would it have happened anyways?
- BoredPositron 11mo agoNobody can know and that's why it's interesting to you... arguing in bad faith. Take your unfalsifiable counterfactual challenge and go back to debate club.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- nomel 11mo agoOr, we can look at their communicated plans before the Paris agreement...
- izacus 11mo agoDo you have even a slightest proof for your claim?
- nonethewiser 11mo agoProof for his claim that this is how it seems to him? Isn't the proof self evident - he said it seems that way. Obviously this doesn't immediately make it true but asking for "proof" mischaracterizes the nature of his statement.
- twothreeone 11mo agoIf you're trying to convince someone (other countries the US) the burden of proof is on you.
- izacus 11mo agoStop normalizing lies.
- wagwang 11mo ago> Is food a human right https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en > Amount of food sent https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance
- sbohacek 11mo agoThis is an example of US not carrying "all the water." The second link shows that the EU+UK (countries + institutions) sent more food aid than the US. The UK has roughly 1/5 the population of the US and sent more than 1/5 as much as the US. Or, the UK has roughly 1/8 the GDP of the US and sent far more than 1/8 as much as the US. Also, the data is 2014-2018 when US food aid was managed by USAID. What is the US percentage now that USAID has been eliminated?
- wagwang 11mo agoThe us share of world gdp was between 22-27% and it was contributing 36%. Secondly, this is only external aid, internally the US far outspend most countries with 100B towards SNAP. Most euro nations don't even have food stamp like programs.
- JoshTriplett 11mo ago> and the goal from the other countries perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords. Which is not inherently a bad thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- etiennebausson 11mo agoInteresting dataset. It would be a lot fairer to display tons of CO2 per inhabitant I think. And that's before taking into account imported CO2.
- brooke2k 11mo agoClimate change isn't driven by per-inhabitant CO2 emissions. It's driven by total CO2 emissions, of which the US outputs 12% per year.
- tock 11mo agoClimate change isn't driven by human defined borders either. It's driven by total CO2 emissions. If a per-capita rate is non sensical then border based emissions are even more non sensical. Greenland only emits 0.001% of the total. Greenland is 12000x a better country than the US wow. This is exactly why per-capita is used.
- im3w1l 11mo agoYeah and this is clearest when you consider federations. Imagine if you count the US as 50 separate countries, suddenly they are much more climate friendly! That's of course absurd.
- mulmen 11mo agoClimate change isn’t driven by borders but energy policy is defined within them.
- 11mo ago
- lovich 11mo agoYou know what the fun fact that everyone I hear complain about the US spending more than is fair on international projects ignores or appears ignorant of? When you’re the one carrying the water, you get to decide where the water goes. I actually prefer regimes like NATO where everyone is happy to leave the US in charge and doesn’t arm themselves. For all the projection of “strength” the current admin gives off, they are on their way towards reigning over a kingdom formed from the ashes of the republic's empire
- whimsicalism 11mo agoI prefer multilateralism, but I do think there are challenges when every country that isn't the biggest smashes the 'defect' button as many times as they can.
- _3u10 11mo agoMost US foreign aid is delivered as bombs, and/or directly funding the terrorists. And if not directly funding the terrorists, creating a situation so stupid that it will lead to a fresh batch for next years war. Neither the people paying for it, nor the people receiving it want it to be done that way.
- CaptWillard 11mo agoAnd don't forget the tertiary effects as we displace millions with those bombs, only to take in a large number of "asylum seekers" from the countries we "aided". IMO this is all by design, and there are a non-zero number of NGO operatives on this very site who are frustrated that anything is impeding that plan.
- rpmisms 11mo agoOK so can everyone else please pay?
- sschueller 11mo agoLike throttling the US from committing war crimes?
- DevKoala 11mo ago> I was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of “global collaborations” seem to always end with the US carry all the water, and the goal from the other countries perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords. I agree 100%. I don't see the benefits here.
- brazukadev 11mo agoDon't worry, China is willingly replacing the US in these global collaborations.
- brabel 11mo agoPoor US always being bullied by everyone else. What kind of world have you been living in where the reality is not the exact opposite??
- colechristensen 11mo agoEh, there are a bunch of these kinds of treaties the US won't sign because for most of the signatories they're inconsequential but they're a huge lever for other countries to take sovereignty from the US.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- glonq 11mo agoYes like the Ottawa Treaty banning Land Mines, in which 166 inconsiderate countries failed to consider the needs of big-time land-mine manufacturers like the US. /s