this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2351 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I was reading about how carbon capture from the air is going to be a trillion dollar industry. Just SMH. It’s so much easier to not emit than it is to recapture. But since we’ll never get China and India off of coal, I guess we have to do something.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But since we’ll never get China and India off of coal, I guess we have to do something.

This is a bad and uninformed take.

Per person, emissions in both China and India are still substantially lower than almost all developed countries. India’s per person emissions are less than one-quarter of the global average, and roughly one-tenth of those of the US. Close to a quarter of all carbon emissions come from manufacturing products which are exported and consumed in other countries. Textiles and clothes exported from India and south Asia account for over 4% of global emissions.
Labelling India and China as the chief villains of COP26 is a convenient narrative. The financial aid which rich countries promised yet failed to deliver as part of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 was supposed to help developing countries dump coal for cleaner sources of energy. And while the world berated India and China for weakening the Glasgow Climate Pact’s coal resolution, few questioned the fossil fuel projects being floated in developed nations, like the UK’s Cambo oilfield and the Line 3 oil pipeline between Canada and the US.

Source

And that's without even going back to look at imperialism and its impacts on those countries, and why they're now having to play catch up with the west (who not only did our fair share of polluting during our own industrial revolutions, but still continue to do so pretty much freely), mostly to provide for the west.

This, like the overpopulation myth, are nothing more than racist distractions created by the rich and powerful to get us to blame "others" rather than look for who is really at fault - them (Edit to clarify: and by them I mean all obscenely rich and the governments they control, faux communists included).

[–] Erk@cdda.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whenever someone says "we'll never get China off coal" I just pretend I read "we'll never get the west off oil". Saves me a lot of irritation.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I might try that, since trying to engage with those replies only leads to even greater frustration..

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You may be surprised to learn that I totally agree with you. In my extremely brief statement I did not treat the nuances of this issue. I think the developing world has every moral right to pursue the same industrialization path as western nations have. I believe our world economy is driving their coal usage. I believe they are still relatively small as a contributor on a per capita basis.

However I also believe that they have less ability to transition to renewables and I expect them to pursue their right to lift their populations out of poverty. And so: we’re never going to get them off coal. With their huge populations, they will inevitably be top contributors as this process progresses. Therefore, we need to focus on mitigations as well as renewables, since this massive set of emissions appears to be non negotiable, and in fact we’d be hypocrites to try, as you point out. I would consider active mitigations the moral obligation of the developed world, and in fact that’s where air capture efforts are mainly occurring.

This isn’t racism, and playing that card in the face of these simple facts is a great way to get nowhere with the issue.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're never going to "get them" off coal because we keep weaselling out of providing them with the support to do so after centuries of exploiting their people and resources for profits the size of which we can't even comprehend, not because of the size of their population, and not because they're top contributors, because as stated, neither of those are even true.

What we need to focus on is the fact that this is a global problem and that shirking and shifting responsibility to others only gains those making the profit more time to make more profit. We all breath the same goddamned air, and pretending like there are "us" and "them" in this mess is ridiculous beyond words.

As for that last part - no one is "playing a card" (seriously??), and while your intent might not be racist, the trope you are using, and its impact, are. You not being aware of this fact (or comfortable with it now that you are) doesn't change it.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay I can tell you’re red hot to defend your narrative. Sorry for making it harder for you.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Lmfao, sure, if that makes you feel better about your shitty take...

[–] sauerkraus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Developing nations have an easier path to renewables. There is less resistance in building new infrastructure than in modifying existing infrastructure. You don’t have to deal with hundred year old equipment when you start with modern equipment.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The developed world owes its advanced state to the use of resources from the undeveloped world and damage to the shared environment.

The developed world should supply non fossil fuel power sources to the undeveloped world, as an investment in a cleaner future and a reparation payment.

Renewables might be able to handle the lesser load initially for developing areas, while small scale thorium or fusion reactors could be future high power options.

[–] ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Not emitting is not that easy. We are in a transition period at the moment. Electric vehicles are here but we don't have all the infrastructure needed to support them. Let alone the fact that battery tech is not developing as fast as we need it to.

Right now liquid fuels still have the advantage of greater energy density. If we could move to hydrogen fuels that would be cool, and we could repurpose existing petroleum facilities.

But who knows which way the tech is going to go. The only sure thing is that we are in for a wild ride one way or the other.

[–] JoJo@social.fossware.space 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's difficult to get China and India off coal because they're doing most of the world's manufacturing and some processes are currently impossible without it. But 'we' exported manufacturing to Asia and 'we' buy the products the coal is used for. 'We' don't get to wriggle out of responsibility by pretending that a couple of low and middle income countries are somehow responsible for 'our' excessive consumption.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They're also far more "off coal" already than most of the west, and their renewable generation is growing far faster than the coal.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, we can 100% blame 'outsourcing to China' for that fuckup. Actually, we can kinda blame greedy shareholders.

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Western countries are just as guilty, if not more. We contributed terribly for several hundred years, and still today net carbon use is still increasing in developed countries. It's just not increasing quite as much as before.

[–] AirlineF0od@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah historically the United States has admitted the most carbon of any country to date. Other countries are having their industrial revolutions and we are hypocrites for criticizing them.

[–] wayoflife@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Asking other countries to get off coal and blaming them for climate change is the most entitled wicked shit Western countries do. Yeah we looted you, fucked you over and tried dismantling your democracy for years. Oh we also polluted the world like it is today because of our greedy ways and sold our soul to fossil fuel companies.. but you stay poor and don't use your resources to develop yourself.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China's usage of coal is huge, but it's proportiojn has dropped from 75+% in 1990 to around 55%. It's slow progress - it may accelerate. The problem is the rest of the world exports so much of its manufacturing requirements to China.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz -1 points 1 year ago

China is actively encouraging that aka temu

[–] Niello@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Other problems with your post aside, you think it's good enough to emit less but not worth it to actively invest in getting the excess carbons out? The problems they are solving overlap, but they are not the same set of problems.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Emitting less is possible NOW. Removing carbon already in the air isn't even possible yet. ClimateTown showed this in a recent vid. All efforts should be towards what's possible and effective now rather than towards what's really expensive, not very effective and may may be possible in the future.

[–] Niello@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

What you said is the equivalence of putting all the eggs in one basket, which is a pretty silly use of the human resources available.

[–] Rekorse@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The vast majority of pollution is from agriculture. Are you gonna quit eating meat anytime soon?

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago
[–] vrojak@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did, and so should everyone else that claims to want to do something about the climate catastrophe.
Artificially grown meat is quickly becoming more and more viable, it's not like it will be impossible forever to have a steak.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also stopped eating meat and also for climate first, but I wouldn't say a person is hypocritical not to either. The problem is not with individual consumers, our impacts are pretty much nonexistent on a problem of this scope. The problem is on our failures of regulators, and of grassroots organizations to enact change. If we want to have impact individually it's not by eating beans, it's by [redacted]. Or at least by organizing disruptive protest.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And you just won't be able to convince enough people to stop eating meat to stop animals from being reared and slaughtered. Humans have been eating meat since before we were homo sapiens. Expecting the masses to adopt a radically different diet is foolish.