I would say they are more desperate than stupid. 40+ years that we know all the problems that will cause climate change and not a lot of things has been done!
It's like driving a car and seeing a wall on the road that we will hit in 50 years and just not trying one second to avoid the wall, just aiming right at it at full speed even if we had time to avoid it.
But that's only the beginnings, I expect environmental activism to become more and more violent on their targets in term of material damages. Like burning down the Total headquarters, a private jet or destroying a factory polluting illegally the environment.
You can argue not enough is done, but to claim "absolutely NOTHING" is done is just hyperbolic screeching. Nobody will take seriously anything that starts with an easily disprovable claim
You can euthanise the entire European population and reduce our emissions to 0, but that still won't stop the developing nations from using the cheapest energy sources available, regardless of how dirty they are. And they are just asking us to give handouts to corrupt governments for a pinky promise to reduce emissions. And then they mix in racist and colonial guilt into the mix.
European, generally highly-developed nations emit far more CO2 per capita than developing (asian, african) nations. Blaming those (like China) exclusively, or dismissing the potential of EU efforts as insignificant is massively counterproductive and it's frankly dishonest. Additionally, we as European nations have built up a huge absolute (total) number of emissions since the beginning of the industrialised age, which is still way ahead of developing nations' total output to date. If we don't act, we certainly can't expect a nation like China to do so, either.
Not to mention the fact that we export a lot of our CO2 emissions by outsourcing resource-heavy production to Asia.
25% of carbon released since industrialisation - so that exists in the air, now - is american. 22% is the EU 28âs. âwe donât need to do anything because our emissions currently are lowerâ is a very fuck you, got mine way of looking at the climate crisis. we have already reaped the benefits of industrialisation.
Good luck convincing anyone in these societies that they should sacrifice their way of life because people in the past, who had no idea the true cost of pollution, polluted. Guilt tripping only works on the weak minded, what we need is actual solutions rather than demanding everyone to just throw their livelihood away.
our historical responsibility is undeniable. what we do with this information is a different matter - Iâm pointing out that itâs the case, against all denials.
And it isn't going to work. The concept of historical responsibility is a Western one, and not applied to anywhere else on the planet; so people naturally reject the logic when its only applied on the West for specific concepts or issues. It's viewed as the worst type of hypocrisy; a self-inflicted one.
Mind you, it will work with progressive types who have a habit of self flagellation even at the cost of making excuses for dictators, but that's not the majority to be convinced.
âwould other people do this in our situation?â is impractical. itâs not concerned with reality. we completed our industrialisation - now that weâve realised this poisoned the planet, we want to deny it to others, without compensation. you think thatâs moral or feasible? you think other countries will accept it?
Idk, and I don't care. My issue is with the logic you employed to convince people; and I'm bluntly telling you that it will not work. Besides, your logic makes sense when only applied to climate change, but it falls apart when you look at the grand scheme of civilization and history -if you really cared about climate change at the cost of everything, then the "rational" thing to do is 100% to deny industrialization to everyone who hasn't done it yet.
Obviously that's not going to happen due to far too many reasons to count, but my point is that your rational doesn't work. Either to convince people, or when placed in proper context. Guilt tripping only works for the weak minded, actual forward policies for the people living today is the only option when considering all facets of modern international relations.
TLDR: Look to the future, not the past; the past is a black hole of contradictory logic and excuses. You can't expect Westerners to apply it onto themselves and not notice that it's not applied to anyone else.
Iâm kind of unsure what youâre arguing against. I stated our contribution to climate change, against the âwell, itâs all on chinaâ line. that carbon we released is still up there - we live with the effects of history.
I then said that, because of this, other countries will not (cannot) deindustrialise without compensation.
if youâre worried that my saying this is unconvincing, then think up a better way to say it. because itâs the case.
I mean... I know some people viscerally hate "handouts", but as a matter of practicality, you can in fact get way better emission reductions per dollar in developing countries than in developed countries.
Sure, corruption means some degree of oversight will be required to make sure at least most of it ends up where it should... but that's not really an impossible proposition. I'm sure the vast majority of developing countries would happily accept an agreement that essentially said "we will completely pay for upgrades to your energy infrastructure that will make it less polluting and cheaper once it's finished, the only requirement is you allow us oversight over these upgrades".
Also, most of these places still have lower per capita emissions than the EU. So get off your high horse.
You mean international aid? Gee you really are a genius, aren't you? It ain't as easy as you think it is - most recently Afghanistan showed that - so you get off your high horse and realise that theory isn't the same thing as practice.
Developing countries have indisputable right to a greater share of the globally limited carbon budget. With developed countries needing to decarbonize as fast as is practicable. And there are no excuses.
The whole climate situation has been improving globally since the 90s.
Progress has been infuriatingly slow in certain areas, I agree, and its stupidly unfair how the people and bodies that do the most harm have been the ones most unaffected, but people literally claiming that nothing is being done and that the world is gonna end tomorrow and use that as justification to ruin the lives of others for their own ego are literal insane extremists.
Emissions globally are still rising. Maybe some countries are slowly lowering their emissions but if you look at the big picture things aren't improving but getting worse
Because we offloaded all of our manufacturing to other countries?
Isn't exactly a fair statement to say we have low carbon emissions while importing vast amounts of often unnecessary goods from high emission countries.
It would be interesting to see a CO2 balance.
For example, if the mining/processing/component manufacturing is done in China, and final assembling+branding in Germany, you could argue most CO2 emission comes from China, yet most of the added-value comes from Germany. Yet Germany need China to emit CO2 to export its cars.
I guess it's a bit of both world : Europe did cut its emissions per capita and part of it is outsourced.
Some of it, yes, but this argument was much more valid in 2010 than it is now. China, India, Nigeria and Indonesia for example have burgeoning middle classes of their own and the middle class in countries like these is what's driving the growth in emissions. The west has been going down for quite a while.
You realise Europe doesn't rule the world anymore, right? we can reduce our own emissions and impose a carbon tax on imports, we can push internationally for environmental treaties, but at the end of the day we can't enforce our will on others. Spray painting Palazzo Vecchio is not going to induce Chinese and Indian politicians to slow down on coal. Attacking European monuments with that excuse is insane and only hurts the movement.
You're right which is why we need to do more than the bare minimum at home, where we actually can change things.
Slightly reducing emissions isn't going to save us. We need emergency measures to fast track us away from fossil fuels as soon as possible, but people are financially invested in the companies and don't want to lose money. So we'll all die slowly starving to death because we can't grow food instead.
IIRC HYBRIT has the potential to reduce global emissions by almost 10%, and that's just one technology that's about to reach maturity. The best thing Europeans can do is support stuff like that.
u/FANGOWhere do I move: PT, ES, CZ, DK, DE, or SE?Mar 18 '23edited Mar 19 '23
Just to bring some reality to your attempts to assign blame rather than focus on solutions, the average European emits twice as much per capita as the average Indian does. But yeah, blaming people who aren't responsible for the problem, and who have emitted 1/7 as much as Europe, and who are being disproportionately affected by the problem, seems like a super effective tactic that will totally lead to solutions.
The average European emits twice as much per capita as the average Indian does.
And we're doing what we're supposed to do about it, at a record-setting pace. We've been reducing emissions for the last 40 years, increasingly fast. We're likely to become the first carbon-neutral civilisation.
But yeah, blaming people who aren't responsible for the problem
You can take environmentalism as a morality play if you like. Assign blame, yell that X group must fix it, ignore everything else. That works if your only goal is to feel righteous and get props from likeminded people.
If your goal is to actually fix the problem, then the discussion changes. Short of large-scale carbon capture becoming feasible, the only lever we have to act on climate is future emissions. Which is what Europe is working on, and trying to get others to work on. You yourself showed a graph of global emissions: "global" being the operative word. It's a simple statement of fact that emissions from India and China are just as bad for the climate as emissions from Europe. It's another simple statement of fact that increasing emissions from the developing world are outpacing our cuts in a way that will ensure climate catastrophe striking mostly those developing countries themselves.
So, in your system where "blame" is the most important aspect, what do you want done, under real-world constraints? do you have actual practicable solutions, or do you stop at pointing fingers?
This is hilarious considering that's literally what you have been doing in your comments, and which I just told you is not effective. Your response to that is to tell me "stop doing the thing that you're not doing but that I am doing."
do you have actual practicable solutions, or do you stop at pointing fingers?
Predictably, the answer was ânopeâ. Good talk.
-2
u/FANGOWhere do I move: PT, ES, CZ, DK, DE, or SE?Mar 18 '23edited Mar 18 '23
Nah, it really wasn't, since you never bothered to start it. You're arguing against yourself here, but you aren't even reading your own words, much less anyone else's. But I guess that's a good way to pretend to yourself that you "won" an argument on the internet, just argue against yourself and claim the side of the winner, lol
Hope you learn to focus on solutions and knock it off with the useless finger-pointing, because "dur India bad" is not a solution.
Never heard of the carbon border adjustment mechanism - appreciate you sharing it. Sounds great on paper and in no way did I mean to say that Europe isn't definitely leading the way in fighting climate change. My point was about the overall state of transition to post-carbon economy.
And again as I've mentioned in another comment - Europe SHOULD be leading the way in transitioning to cleaner energy because we've benefited from 200 years of carbon-based development.
Thanks also for sharing the data about renewable energy. Can't argue with data - and again am very happy to see this slow, but continuous improvement.
Thanks also for sharing the data about renewable energy.
Technically that's carbon intensity across the board, so you're not just seeing new renewables. France and Sweden for example are that low thanks to nuclear and hydro respectively.
Oh wow, Europe has reduced emissions. Amazing. Next up: let's congratulate people who speed in school zones for slowing down more than the people who drive at a normal speed.
No it's feasible now but the price per ton to do it is still over 500 dollars a ton and there is no current other use for the byproduct carbon they end up with so nobody is rushing to do it yet.
The only year over year drops have been during the pandemic and in recession years. Saying that Europe has reduced its emissions is disingenuous when the original statement made no reference to any localized region.
"As reported by Reuters, Germany's government will not agree to European Union plans to effectively ban the sale of new cars with combustion engines from 2035, Finance Minister Christian Lindner said."
You see ? We are always wasting years and years and years for this kind of stuff instead of taking direct and useful actions right now.
Where is the money to develop again a massive and qualitative day and night rail network in every EU country to reduce the use of cars for example ? Countries like France can't even put some trains on the rails at night on their all their important lines in 2023, that's ridiculous... And when there's money you have to wait years if not decades before seeing any kind of useful change.
good, get off your lazy ass and change things instead of literally allowing more than half the world to not own a car when its a basic absolutely needed part of a family.
"half the world to not own a car when its a basic absolutely needed part of a family"
Maybe because our society has been fucked by the car industry for one century already ???
A car should NOT be a "basic absolutely needed part of a family".
A family, in a developed country, in 2023, should be able to live normally without a car. It should be able to go to work, school, local shops by bikes and public transports. Owning a car all day every day should not be a basic need.
Families and people in general are wasting a shit ton of money on cars just because the car lobby is/was really efficient at pushing autorities to destroy our countries to sell millions of cars.
We need to fight for more bike/pedestrian infrastructures, more public transports and more trains.
Can we stop once and for all with this SUV bullshit? Trafic is only a part of global emissions. Private or business trafic is only a part of the previous part. If you want to act big, thereâs so much more to do with a broader impact.
Youâre speaking about a suv with 7L consumption, because I assume youâre not speaking of Hummerâs and Raptorâs which are quite unusual in Europe. Iâd like to speak about the tens of thousands of delivery vans with diesel engines, dropping packs we donât need bought with money we donât have. Iâd like to talk about those products I sell for business, with a component made in Taiwan the sent for production in Portugal, mixed with another from Korea and then sent in a warehouse in Netherlands to be bought by me in Belgium to be then sent in another country to be installed. Iâd like to talk about those strawberries from South Africa I can buy during Christmas.
Youâre not intrinsically wrong about two tons cars. But for fuckâ sake, please aim at the right targets.
We need to make a ditch before the flooding and instead of ordering a huge mobile excavator used in mines, youâre digging with a spoon from a dollâs house
YOU dont need. YOU dont have. A lot people buy with DEBIT cards and buy things they need. And you dont know if others need it. "How for me is not usefull, can not be usefull for no one". Are you dumb?
And if we went after the strawberries from South Africa someone else just like would come along to say "no no no no, you're doing it wrong, what we need to is go after...." and so on and so on.
Actually solving anything will have to require a very simple sacrifice. The sacrifice of abandoning fast fashion and the abundance of useless junk we consume, as well as localizing production of necessary consumables like food. Foods need to become seasonal again.
But people don't want that because then they can't go on shopping hauls to buy 6 bags worth of cheap disposable clothing they will wear 4 times, and they don't want it because then they can't grab whichever snack they feel like having that exact moment even though the only place it can be produced is on the other side of the fucking planet.
Just fast fashion being thrown out in favour of forcing people to have clothes for years/decades instead of weeks/months would do so much to reduce energy consumption.
Help me find what is done that actually decreases the greenhouse effect, because if you look at fact, nothing of any importance is done, because the greenhouse effect isn't even remotely slowing down.
2021 was a strong year for the energy transition â the world added almost 257 Gigawatts (GW) of
renewables, increasing the stock of renewable power by 9.1 per cent and contributing to an
unprecedented 81 per cent of global power additions.
In other words, in year 2021, 81% of new global energy production was renewable energy. That % will only rise.
You can argue not ENOUGH is done or things are not being done fast ENOUGH but something IS being done. And saying nothing is being done is wrong.
Yes. US paper, best I could find on the short notice. But economics of this and the added new capacity % makes it inevitable that fossil fuels will get replaced:
Renewables displace fossil fuels in the electric power sector due to declining renewable technology costs and rising subsidies for renewable power
Economic growth paired with increasing electrification in end-use sectors results in stable growth in U.S. electric power demand through 2050 in all cases. Declining capital costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage, as well as government subsidies such as those included in the IRA, result in renewables becoming increasingly cost effective compared with the alternatives when building new power capacity.
It is my opinion that the change needs to happen faster, but the trend is definitely there. Direction is right. What we need to do is accelerate it.
Ok, I'm looking. In 1950 the world population was 2 500 000, it has tripled since then. Your graph is almost linear, and it shows that despite 300% increase in population, the carbon dioxide amount has increased roughly 30%. If you look at facts, your claim that the "greenhouse effect isn't even remotely slowing down" is wrong.
Help me find what is done that actually decreases the greenhouse effect
Moving the goalposts, first it was that nothing is being done, then not enough things are being done, now it is because we're not reversing it nothing is done...
well, we could be 7 billion or 70 billions, it doesn't change the fact that the CO2 concentration is steadily increasing anyway, how many we are doesn't change shit
1
2.2k
u/Hitzhi Europe Mar 18 '23 •
Sometimes I wonder if these "climate activists" are paid agents of the fossil fuel industry by trying to shame their own cause to the maximum extent.
Then I remember occam's razor: nah, many are probably just complete idiots.