Greenhouse Gas Emissions Must Peak Within 4 Years, Says Leaked UN Report (theguardian.com) 462
An anonymous reader shares a report from The Guardian: Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years, coal and gas-fired power plants must close in the next decade and lifestyle and behavioral changes will be needed to avoid climate breakdown, according to the leaked draft of a report from the world's leading authority on climate science. The leak is from the forthcoming third part of the landmark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the first part of which was published on Monday, warning of unprecedented changes to the climate, some of them irreversible. The document, called the sixth assessment report, is divided into three parts: the physical science of climate change; the impacts and ways of reducing human influence on the climate.
Part three is not scheduled to be released before next March, but a small group of scientists decided to leak the draft via the Spanish branch of Scientist Rebellion, an offshoot of the Extinction Rebellion movement. It was first published by the journalist Juan Bordera in the Spanish online magazine CTXT. Bordera told the Guardian that the leak reflected the concern of some of those involved in drawing up the document that their conclusions could be watered down before publication in 2022. Governments have the right to make changes to the "summary for policymakers."
The top 10% of emitters globally, who are the wealthiest 10%, contribute between 36 and 45% of emissions, which is 10 times as much as the poorest 10%, who are responsible for only about three to 5%, the report finds. "The consumption patterns of higher income consumers are associated with large carbon footprints. Top emitters dominate emissions in key sectors, for example the top 1% account for 50% of emissions from aviation," the summary says. The report underlines the lifestyle changes that will be necessary, particularly in rich countries and among the wealthy globally. Refraining from over-heating or over-cooling homes, walking and cycling, cutting air travel and using energy-consuming appliances less can all contribute significantly to the reductions in emissions needed, the report finds.
Part three is not scheduled to be released before next March, but a small group of scientists decided to leak the draft via the Spanish branch of Scientist Rebellion, an offshoot of the Extinction Rebellion movement. It was first published by the journalist Juan Bordera in the Spanish online magazine CTXT. Bordera told the Guardian that the leak reflected the concern of some of those involved in drawing up the document that their conclusions could be watered down before publication in 2022. Governments have the right to make changes to the "summary for policymakers."
The top 10% of emitters globally, who are the wealthiest 10%, contribute between 36 and 45% of emissions, which is 10 times as much as the poorest 10%, who are responsible for only about three to 5%, the report finds. "The consumption patterns of higher income consumers are associated with large carbon footprints. Top emitters dominate emissions in key sectors, for example the top 1% account for 50% of emissions from aviation," the summary says. The report underlines the lifestyle changes that will be necessary, particularly in rich countries and among the wealthy globally. Refraining from over-heating or over-cooling homes, walking and cycling, cutting air travel and using energy-consuming appliances less can all contribute significantly to the reductions in emissions needed, the report finds.
That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
We were given the option 30 years ago to do this the easy way or the hard way.
Now we're given an option to do this the expensive way or the hard way.
In 5 years we'll not notice much difference. In 50 years we'll have the option of a one world government or the hard way.
I'll go to my grave assuming we chose the hard way.
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
We were given the option 30 years ago to do this the easy way or the hard way.
Now we're given an option to do this the expensive way or the hard way.
In 5 years we'll not notice much difference. In 50 years we'll have the option of a one world government or the hard way.
I'll go to my grave assuming we chose the hard way.
I second that. If fact-based strategic planning is needed to avoid a really big catastrophe, humanity always choses the catastrophe because the average person cannot even imagine what might be next year.
Re: That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: That's nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's enough steel just in rebar and car springs to supply a 17th century civilization for thousands of years. Just have to not let it all rust away. And in some ways we'd still be much better off. At least we know why latrines are necessary.
Pascal's sociopathic wager (Score:5, Interesting)
I may or may not make personal sacrifices for the good of the environment.
And, "everyone else" may or may not make personal sacrifices for the good of the environment.
This creates a 2x2 matrix of possibilities, with the results as follows:
I sacrifice + everyone else sacrifices = climate saved
I don't sacrifice + everyone else sacrifices = climate saved
I sacrifice + nobody else sacrifices = climate destroyed
I don't sacrifice + nobody else sacrifices = climate destroyed
So, it is clear from this analysis that my individual sacrifices make no difference. The determining factor is entirely in "everyone else's" court. Since making the sacrifice is burdensome to me, and doesn't actually matter in the long run, it makes no sense for me to actually make sacrifices.
It makes perfect sense for me to encourage "everyone else" to make sacrifices, but there is no gain (and significant loss) in me making the sacrifices myself.
Fix this problem of incentives, and people will make the necessary sacrifices. Leave this problem unfixed, and we will see that most people are, at their cores, selfish bastards, and the world is doomed.
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
It took me a long time to realize this "50 years" truth. Eco-fascism and eco-socialism are something I would of never considered myself in support of but now seem the only way.
I don't think it's 50 years though. It's 20 to 30 and it's clear in 5 years we won't have implemented either the expensive way or the hard way in any significant matter, so we are essentially going to end up with pure civilization collapse or eco-fascism.
Re: That's nice... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Internet was the result of government funded research. The WWW was the result of government funded research. NCSA Mosaic was the result of government funded research. Internet Explorer was originally based on NCSA Mosaic, so came from government funded research. Mark Andreeson, who was behind the creation of Netscape Navigator, was one of the co-writers of NCSA Mosaic, so Navigator was based on NCSA Mosaic, so came from government funded research. Babbage's Difference Engine and Analytical Engine were g
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, although we absolutely can NOT let that be an excuse to do nothing.
Really the solution is just trees. Billions of them. If it where up to me, I'd turn the entirity of australias outback deserts in to forest and you'd end up with a massive carbon sink big enough to save the world (and potentially give habitat for about 2 billion more humans). That probably won't be happenning anytime soon. It'd be the biggest macroengineering project in history by an order of magnitudes, and it would certainly have opp
Re:That's nice... (Score:4, Informative)
We'd have to plant 1.8 billion trees a year just to soak up what we're putting up there right now. That's 60 trees per second we need to plant, just to keep up. That, on top of what it would take to drop the CO2 PPM back down to ~300 or so... No. Trees aren't gonna fix this.
Re:That's nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine when we decide to finally start looking for active solutions, some kind of bioreactor is going to be the way we fix this fucking mess. There's a lot of sunlight in the world, and algae make great slaves.
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
2 billion trees wouldn't even scratch the mountain of carbon we'd have to remove at this point. We'd have to plant 1.8 billion trees a year just to soak up what we're putting up there right now. That's 60 trees per second we need to plant, just to keep up. That, on top of what it would take to drop the CO2 PPM back down to ~300 or so... No. Trees aren't gonna fix this.
And as soon as the trees die, guess where the carbon goes? Either fast via fire, or slow via good old rot. Trees are carbon neutral.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a strange position to be "pro-life" but "anti-mask" and "anti-vaccine" when both of those things save lives. In addition, "conservatives" are all about local control until they don't like what the local city and county governments are doing because it goes against their messaging, so they start bigfooting it from State government all the while complaining about Federal takeover at the same time.
The Republican Party is so fucked up right now.
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but totally not going to happen, despite best intentions. We need to get a lot more serious about ways to dump heat and remove greenhouse gases, in addition to sequestration via nature and reduction of emissions. Even if all the 1st world consumers changed their habits accordingly, there are a lot of rising economies that are still playing catch-up and looking to cheap energy sources.
The thing about the so called '3rd. world' is that they don't have much money, so when wind and solar become the cheapest option ... oh look! they are the cheapest option ... that's what these countries will ... scratch that ... are investing in. Blaming CO2 emissions on the so called '3rd. world' countries by using the "if all the rich countries brought carbon emissions down to 0 it wouldn't matter" argument is asinine. What matters is the level of industrialisation not whether a country is 1st., 2nd, or 3rd world. Between them the industrialised countries, EU27 25%, the US 14% and China 30% produce 69% of the world's carbon emissions. Poor countries don't give a crap about burning coal to own the libs, that's a US thing. Case in point, Africa: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/re... [unu.edu]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been modded troll just for pointing out gas central heating and gas cooking need to end. Most people don't want to compromise their lifestyles one iota, basically we're completely fucked and will likely see 5+ degrees of warming, all kind of tipping points will pass and global heating will cause huge methane releases from land and sea.
The Atlantic conveyor belt has slowed a lot and is said to be weak, it may be our saviour (long term), it could switch off and cause an ice-age. I bet the climate modelle
Re: (Score:3)
Some of them *have* factored that in. They were dismissed by governments as alarmist. There's a reason this report was leaked before the governments watered it down as the did the last two (at least).
Re: (Score:2)
So Xi really is god? Whoa.
No way (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as preventing AGW, we blew it as a species. Its gonna get VERY ugly before we take it seriously.
Dont wanna listen to the engineers? Fine, deal with it when your buildings fall over. Dont wanna listen to the climate scientists? Fine, deal with the unpredictable weather, rapid environmental change and everything else that comes with it. We could have avoided this. The cost would have been a few percent of global GDP. We just dint wanna.
Im sure that half our population will find some way to blame george soros while the deadly heat forces them to flee towards the poles. Climate deniers incoming in 3..2..1..
It wasn't but we didn't wanna (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I do not really see the "ruling class" as the problem. It seems to be a general problem that only the 10% or so independent thinkers are able to understand what longer term predictions actually mean. The average person (whether "ruling class" or not) cannot understand a prediction for the next 5 years. Hell, a majority cannot even predict and then plan to the end of the month.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see the ruling class as the problem then you aren't looking. Just who do you think is making the 'big' decisions? Classism is the root problem that keeps the powerful from being accountable and therefore responsible.The lack of oversight is like little kids having a party cause mom and dad are away.
Wake up people. the party is over.
Re: It wasn't but we didn't wanna (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We are not all to blame for it not being fixed.
Re:It wasn't but we didn't wanna (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if we hang them all, this problem will not go away.
Right, you need to hang them all every few years. It takes time to form new habits.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that about 90% of the people are actually just doing what they're being told because they lack the time, mental faculties, will or ability to accept personal failure to actually consider the information available, reflect and come to a conclusion, the problem is indeed "following orders".
And when you spent an eternity discrediting science because it keeps telling people what's bad for your business, well, what do you expect people to believe?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is about proposing a hypothesis that can be tested. If you cannot test it, it's worthless.
"Questioning" also doesn't mean "I don't want to believe A, so I instead believe B".
The Phenomenon you were talking aboutl (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That ruling class will also manage to survive no matter what happens. They could move underground or something, maybe even into space, perhaps like in that film "Elysium". The biggest problem will be for the rest 99% to survive, live decent lives without droughts, famine, drinking water, high food prices etc.
It is a really sad situation, and the 99% are too distracted to see what's going on and to do something about it. There should be global protests against the further profit-chasing and doing everything
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than you think. According to the report, in order for it to happen:
"A shift to diets with a higher share of plant-based protein in regions with excess consumption of calories and animal-source food can lead to substantial reductions in emissions"
You don't need to exactly be vegetarian, just get a lot more plant-based protein.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easier than you might imagine, it would already have an incredible impact if we stopped subsidizing livestock farming. The price of meat would about double and you'd see an immediate shift in purchasing habits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the plus side, Humanity will have a big die-off. I expect something like 20...90% of the species. That should make it amply clear to the rest to not screw up in this fashion again.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple tipping points on that way and 90% of us dying will likely not bring back the climate we‘re used to in any timespan that matters for civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple tipping points on that way and 90% of us dying will likely not bring back the climate we‘re used to in any timespan that matters for civilization.
Indeed. The nice climate we still have will not come back. But a part of the human race may find a way to survive. The interesting thing will be whether we will be able to maintain a technologically advanced society or not. "In this fashion" did refer to ignoring severe global problems just because it takes a while for them to manifest.
Re: (Score:2)
Buildings falling over? You aren't serious, are you?
Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Insightful)
[List of Photovoltaic Power Stations] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
-2,245 MW
-57 km^2
[Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Station] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
-1,620 MW
-A warehouse in Mexico
Imagine wasting 57 square kilometers of land for a yield that is marginally more than a General Electric nuclear power plant commissioned in the early 90's.
Besides, we must not ignore the elephant in the room, china will never agree to reduce their emissions, and they are the single worst polluter (if you get past their propaganda numbers). Do not buy Chinese products where possible. Make companies move their factories to countries that actually have sustainability laws.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Informative)
china will never agree to reduce their emissions
China is installing more wind and solar than any other country.
China has almost as many EVs as America and Europe combined.
EV use by country [wikipedia.org]
they are the single worst polluter
China has about half of America's per capita CO2 emissions.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Informative)
USA: 15.5 ton/capita/year
China: 7.5 t/c
EU: 6.4 t/c
The EU has less than half the CO2/c of the USA, while maintaining the same standard of living. China is higher than the EU, while the standard of living is much lower. Both China and the USA need to improve.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Insightful)
China is 9 years ahead of its Paris climate goals too, which were considered aggressive when set.
Change can be done rapidly, but it needs a great deal of political will and the billionaires won't like it.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Informative)
China is installing more wind and solar than any other country.
China is also at the top or nearly so on construction of fossil fuel power, nuclear power, and hydro power. That's because they need more power and they will take any option that might prove feasible.
China imports more coal than any other nation: https://www.indexmundi.com/ene... [indexmundi.com]
That's on top of what they produce: https://www.indexmundi.com/ene... [indexmundi.com]
Just in case someone thinks that China is just exporting that coal to Russia or something here's how little they export: https://www.indexmundi.com/ene... [indexmundi.com]
Ranking of national consumption: https://www.indexmundi.com/ene... [indexmundi.com]
That's all to show that China produces a lot of coal, imports more, exports little, and burns plenty. I'll note that Germany makes it to #4 on the list of coal consumers. That just shows how well Germany's transition from nuclear to wind and solar is going.
China has about half of America's per capita CO2 emissions.
At this rate I expect that to flip in a rather short amount of time.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Insightful)
This (Score:3)
Very much this. A large amount of the western countries CO2 emission has been moved to China. So we just have to change what we order and to really check if it is really produced in a less polluting way.
Everyone I know who is working in any business that has rules to lower pollution has told me stories how those rules are secretly broken. We make those rules so that they can be broken and it‘s an open secret.
Related to this are taxes. We make laws so that they can be circumvented or broken and then we
Re: (Score:2)
How much and how fast can you ramp up nuclear, which in any case only addresses the electricity problem?
I seem to remember that there's limited manufacturing capacity for pressure vessels, and the plants are time consuming to build.
Every plant that does get built improves our situation but can it be decisive?
Alternatives to pressure vessels (Score:2)
I‘m all for renewable energy be ause I don‘t trust operators cutting corners.
But if we somehow manage to jump start building thorium reactors in a way similar we did with Covid vaccines, building multiple systems in parallel, knowing that some systems may not be successful, that may be one thing that helps.
It would need to be tightly controlled in a nin-corruptible, we‘d have to very pragmatically agree about nuclear waste facilities in multiple areas to avoid NIMBY and we‘d need to
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea. Time to find a location for that nuke plant.
Where do you live again?
Re: Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Funny)
If coal wasn't meant for power generation, then why did God create so much of it?
God put all the coal here as a collective IQ test.
Re: (Score:2)
If coal wasn't meant for power generation, then why did God create so much of it?
Turns out it's the raw material for a Star Trek replicator. Only the raw carbon of coal can be processed atomically into any structure (including reorganization of protons/electrons/neutrons). The technology will be discovered soon.
Too bad we burned it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not because of the carbon, it's because of the coal: The carbon mixed with impurities, settled over millennia. In modern chemistry, the amount of time it settles doesn't matter, only the chemical structure matters. Whereas in the future, we will find that there are some sub-quantum effects that are imbued into the coal with the passage of time/pressure, catalyzed (so to speak) by the impurities. Our current equipment isn't sophisticated enough to detect it, but we will invent it. That's why coal is an
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine even charcoal is purer.
Much purer.
You can't even burn coal directly.. I mean, you *can*, but you don't want to be anywhere near it, because it will fucking kill you.
It's turned into coke first, by "burning" away the impurities in an anoxic environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a test.
Then again, didn't he already see with the apple test that we have no self-discipline?
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear is the road to hell. Too slow to establish, far, far too expensive, too unreliable, and cannot deliver more than 70% of the power-mix anyways because it reacts far too slow and would make the grid unstable.
France is doing just fine, thanks for asking. And they saved tens of thousands of lives by going all in on nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
France has 70% nuclear only, and it is _not_ doing fine. Also, it can rely on its connection to the European grid, and that uses far less nuclear.
Seriously.
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nuclear is the only solution (Score:4, Informative)
Something about half their capacity being 1 bad day away from going Full Fukushima, resulting in them shutting it all down and importing energy... and then finding that half of those had steel that was corroding and cracking and shit and it had been known and covered up for decades.
So ya, it's not all that peachy over there, which is why they're down to only a third of their population supporting nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
France has 70% nuclear only, and it is _not_ doing fine.
And how precisely is it not doing fine?
Also, it can rely on its connection to the European grid, and that uses far less nuclear.
And the other countries rely on their connection to France, who uses far more nuclear.
it all begins at home (Score:4, Interesting)
My anecdotal observation is that many ordinary people are taking action to protect the environment. In support of that, I note that Californians have reduced their water usage substantially in the last decade without pressure from government.
If this altruistic behavior exists elsewhere, there is hope.
It's not nearly enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Californians could reduce water use by way more than they are now. But most wont.
After all the droughts in California over the last 40 years the locals know that if they don't cut back a bit on their own the state will enforce water restrictions that will have far more impact on them than if they cut back just enough to avoid the harsh rationing.
My view may be cynical but I have found that the surest way to get the average person to conserve a resource on their own is to have the looming threat of even wor
Stop blaming others (Score:2)
All I hear a few billion rich cry babies saying I'm not going to do anything until the richer, C
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if a rich person has a private coal fired power plant to mine bitcoin or spends 8 hours every day flying in a private jet.He has the money, he can do whatever.
I care if the same person then tells me that I should reduce my CO2 emissions and that I should not have a personal coal fired power plant or drive an old car, even though I produce less than 1% of the CO2 that he does.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these things is not like the other.
Re: (Score:3)
We have this thing called a free market
You mean the free market that gave us the tragedy of the commons and considers the climate one of those commons, that free market?
The rich are irrelevant (Score:2)
The rich 1% may own 99% of everything, but they do not produce 99% of the CO2 by far.
There is a point to make about them owning nearly everything, though, but it is not directly related to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a lie.
I haven't seen him at the rituals in months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does he think we can summon the antichrist properly if he's dropping the ball like that?
Fucking slacker.
Re: (Score:2)
Dangerous smoke levels 3 years in a row now here in Seattle. So much smoke that you can look at the sun without squinting.
Haven't seen that shit in the 35 or so years that I've lived here.
oh well (Score:4)
My neighbour bought a new SUV ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... for her dogs.
Yep, she lives alone - divorced, kids left home... but she *needed* an SUV so she could take the dogs out.
But not an electric vehicle, oh no, a Diesel one.
This is the HUGE problem we face, that people still just don't get the extreme challenges they are going to face in just a few years.
Ask those in the USA and Europe, battling with fires - these relatively affluent, formerly relatively safe regions - now caught up in climate breakdown.
The threat has grown from mainly impacting the world's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to start earlier. Make access to abortions easy and hassle-free and you'll see a sharp drop in birth rates, especially by those people who the conservatives consider "undesirables" anyway.
Re:My neighbour bought a new SUV ... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a comfort lie entitled western assholes tell themselves, to pretend the problem is poor people having babies and not your lazy ass using 30 times the amount of resources as a person in a developing country.
Next? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting times. _Unusually_ interesting ones that will be slow to creep up on us, but will not go away for an exceptionally long time.
In conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
draft version (Score:2)
... the leaked draft of a report
Can't wait to read the watered down approved for public release by the myriad of diplomats trying to protect their countries and screw over their political enemies.
Its probably going to be hilarious.
Collective good - No way!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The apocalypse can wait (Score:2, Troll)
The apocalypse has been just around the corner for so long that it's hard to take it seriously. I mean, is it worth giving up steak, bacon, and The Internet so that a bunch of scientists and worry warts can sleep easy?
These people have been whining ever since man came down from the trees/caves, and the apocalypse still hasn't shown. Sure they may be right this time, but what if they aren't? What makes today different, because they have data?
What if the poor half of the population vanished? Would that work?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be more environmental friendly if the rich half of the population vanished. The carbon footprint of some kid in rags sitting on a dump is negligible.
The derp can wait (Score:4, Interesting)
Apocalypse shmapocalypse. Climate change has been costing the US alone hundreds of billions each year. Or did you think all the record droughts, forest fires, floods and hurricanes came with zero costs?
The only people who would see a reduction in lifestyle from mitigating climate change would be the shareholders of weapons dealers and fossil fool companies. Everyone else would see a dramatic rise in their standard of living from the greatest jobs boom in the history of the human race.
Your arrogant western ass uses 30 times the amount of resources as a person in a developing country. How about *you* disappear.
Re:Or what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately no, we just need to stop listening to stupid people who spout stupid, overly dramatic things with no grounding in reality like the post you just made.
Re: (Score:2)
You definitely don't come to slashdot to make friends.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go anywhere, online or in real life, with the end goal of making friends with world government conspiracy nutters.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what facebook is for?
Re: (Score:2)
We need to consolidate all power to the UN and have a new world leader?
Apparently increasing temperatures cause increasing conspiracy theories.
Or maybe the other way around...
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing climate change needs increasingly unhinged theories to justify business as usual.
By the way, the costs of the recent flooding in Germany is expected to be about the same as the federal money supporting the exit from coal based energy production until 2038.
Re: (Score:2)
Ding ding. The costs of mitigation are going to be significantly cheaper now than the long term side-effects but we really kind of already missed an "optimal" window in a sense of cost. We have to consider human capital now and the fact that now we just gotta commit, no matter the cost, to mitigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. It's more like "or we can rejoice because soon we won't have any use for a world leader anymore".
Re: (Score:2)
The choices are US, EU and China. We all 3 have to individually go to work and we have to stop doing business and interacting with all those who don‘t.
Re: (Score:2)
Laughs are universal. You say "haha" in English. Chinese go "haha" too except there is a character for it. It's not like there is some special Chinese laugh. This is reason 1 why you don't know what you talking about.
Reason 2, is the CCP does care. There are a number of ways China is a leader on a green emissions, except if you look at total emissions but then again, consider the population, so per capita China is leading as a modern economy for the green initiative with the largest caveat being they believ
Re: (Score:2)
China has four times the population of the United States. That means they get to emit four times as much as the United States. You navel-gazing simp.
Irony (Score:2)
"The government minister responsible for this year’s UN climate change conference in Glasgow has flown to 30 countries in the past seven months, it has been reported.
Alok Sharma, who was appointed as president of Cop26 in January, has visited countries including Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya since February, according to the Daily Mail."
One day senior pollies and the 'great and good' will just have to zoom and phone like the rest of us. Until then, they'll travel first class and in bizjets.
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:4, Funny)
The US CO2 emission fell most during Trump era
Lemme guess, most of it was in that last year of his rule?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most glaciers I know of are shrinking and it's not been snowing for a decade or two now in regions that had reliable snow covers from November to February back when I was a kid. But believe what you want.
I don't have kids. I'll be dead in 40 years, so I don't really care.
What's your excuse?
Re: (Score:2)