Handful of Countries Responsible For Climate Crisis, Top Court Told (theguardian.com) 148
A handful of countries should be held legally responsible for the ongoing impacts of climate change, representatives of vulnerable states have told judges at the international court of justice (ICJ). From a report: During a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which began on Monday, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment, said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with "a handful of readily identifiable states" that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts.
The court heard how Pacific island states such as Vanuatu were bearing the brunt of rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe disasters. "We find ourselves on the frontlines of a crisis we did not create," Regenvanu said. The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by Vanuatu. In March last year the UN general assembly unanimously approved a resolution calling on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so.
Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries, including wealthy developed states with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island countries.
The court heard how Pacific island states such as Vanuatu were bearing the brunt of rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe disasters. "We find ourselves on the frontlines of a crisis we did not create," Regenvanu said. The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by Vanuatu. In March last year the UN general assembly unanimously approved a resolution calling on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so.
Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries, including wealthy developed states with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island countries.
Peaceful solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the ICJ rules in their favour, countries signed up to it will be obliged to take whatever action is suggested to remedy the situation. Okay, the US can and will ignore it, but for example the EU won't.
It will also be useful for getting legal rulings elsewhere, like at the WTO.
It's far from perfect as we have seen in Palestine, but it's not completely useless either. European countries have been pressured to reduce arms sales to Israel, for example, off the back of the ICJ preliminary ruling of genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ICJ rules in their favour, countries signed up to it will be obliged to take whatever action is suggested to remedy the situation. Okay, the US can and will ignore it, but for example the EU won't.
The sea is still coming. Can't be reversed or paid off no matter how much money you dump into it, That'd would probably just make it worse though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
They expanded their land into the sea.
Because it is super flat surface, and "kind of easy"/
And with wind mills, wind powered pumps they pumped out the water from the land they conquered.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ICJ rules in their favour, countries signed up to it will be obliged to take whatever action is suggested to remedy the situation.
More likely these types of rulings will only work to further erode the legitimacy of ICJ. Legal regimes are only useful in beating down outliers once consensus is reached. Going beyond this is an exercise in self-harm that only serves to weaken underlying institutions.
It's far from perfect as we have seen in Palestine, but it's not completely useless either. European countries have been pressured to reduce arms sales to Israel, for example, off the back of the ICJ preliminary ruling of genocide.
Israel judging by UN resolution voting records is a case where there is broad international consensus against. Saying carbon emitters are committing some kind of crime and meting out punishment is not a position for which there is anything
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just calmly and rationally explain their position to the sea and ask if would be so kind as stop encroaching on their beaches and only affect this list of (rich) countries. Their survival is their right after all, I'm sure the sea will understand.
I had to re-read that a few times! Pretty sure I get it now. 8^)
It is kind of distressing that there will be some low lying places that are going to have big issues with sea level rise. Might even disappear under the waves.
But the idea that some nations need to be punished begs the question - Should we have never left the pre-industrial age? We could have settled maybe on 1700 as the sweet spot, kind of becoming global Amish, so to speak.
We need to get off of the Carbon de-sequestering treadmill, as
Vanuatu has bigger problems (Score:2, Informative)
Vanuatu is a volcanic archipelago with an average elevation higher than that of the Australian continent.
Sea-level rise is a minor issue compared to corrupt and incompetent government, obesity and high birthrate.
Farmers have been moving away from food crops to the cultivation of the drug kava.
Re: (Score:1)
Vanuatu is also, historically, the source of the majority of the phone scams we deal with in America. Their boiler-room "call centers" are notorious offenders.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of companies forbid their executives from flying on the same plane as a security measure. Why would that be different for very senior members of a government?
Also, who is this "Prince Charles"? If you're going to concern troll a country about governance issues, you should probably keep up with who the current sovereign is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible for them to be right about the crisis, and hypocrites in their own actions, at the same time. Hardly anyone lives their lives fully consistent with their self-professed beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea... (Score:3)
I also expect there to be objections, attacks, misdirection, or just plain ignorance from the countries' govts who don't like the outcomes. But at least we'll know their true positions on the matter because of it. From there, we the people can decide how we are to apply pressure on our govts to secure less dire circumstances for our children & their children & so on.
Re:Sounds like a good idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate moral question of climate change is how much people should sacrifice in the hopes of making the world a better place after they personally are dead. I never hear this question discussed directly in connection to climate change. People rarely say, "what do I care, I'll be dead by then." Yet I think a lot of people are inclined to deny it's happening, because they don't care, because they'll be dead.
Re: (Score:2)
People rarely say, "what do I care, I'll be dead by then." Yet I think a lot of people are inclined to deny it's happening, because they don't care, because they'll be dead.
I've seen a lot of people say that, including in Slashdot comments. It's probably the same people who say things like "It's a free country, I have to right to do this and that". The problem is that often the rights of one person will trample on the rights of another, so there are good reasons to limit the rights.
For example, meat eaters like to proclaim how it's their sacred right to eat meat. With this kind of logic, I should have the right to imprison, kill and eat those people, because they too are ma
Re: (Score:2)
1. People around the world hold a deep seated hatred for you & you can't understand why.
2. You feel the need to disown the actions of several generations of your forebears.
Time to have a good long think & maybe find out some of that history that makes other people so mad at you?
At least Vanuatu can't be accused (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: At least Vanuatu can't be accused (Score:2)
Shipping by water tends to be quite energy efficient. Aeroplanes of course not, so if they want to be consistent about it and not be sn enabling party to the problem they should of course ban all non-emergency aeroplane traffic to and from the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Pacific geopolitical hotspot (Score:3)
The point? (Score:3, Insightful)
The poorer countries are fed by the rich (Score:3)
The richest and most powerful countries in the world are not going to agree to be "held responsible" by the weakest and poorest ones beyond saying in effect, "my bad". Don't hold your breath. I hope it makes you feel better about voicing your opinions though. You have been heard. We care, but not enough to give you our stuff. Our ancestors pillaged and stole more than we need while trashing into the air and oceans fair and square.
Most of these poor countries can't produce enough food to feed themselves. They import from exporters like the USA, Canada, Latin America, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. TMK, none of them produce tractors, cars, or serious cargo vessels. They don't produce infrastructure components, like generators to keep the lights on.
There's MANY ways to improve the situation, but the world's top polluters aren't polluting because they're so greedy and living such a decadent life. It's not AC cranked up in the summ
Most emissions are from export industries (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the US EPA website, only 31% of CO2 emissions are from transportation and residential/office buildings. 25% are from electricity, 23% from industry, 10% from agriculture.
Vanuatu doesn't produce anything useful, to my knowledge. They rely on all these polluting countries, like China to create their stuff. So cut the sanctimonious shit. You want to sue us?...how about stop consuming all products made from polluting countries first?...oh wait...you like your cars, boats, and iPhones?...OK...well...the shut your mouth. This is the price of progress...our choices are no progress and poverty for developing nations...or climate change...we should absolutely be doing all we can to reduce emissions....but let's not forget the majority of the emissions are from feeding the planet, providing them energy, and making their stuff. Our greedy overconsumption in our homes and suburban sprawl are only a tiny fraction of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So cut the sanctimonious shit. You want to sue us?...how about stop consuming all products made from polluting countries first?...oh wait...you like your cars, boats, and iPhones?...OK...well...the shut your mouth.
Vanuatu has a GDP per capita of $3,387.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
So they are pretty much trying to stay alive, not consuming 'cars, boats, and iPhones'.
Per Capita - Why It Doesn't Matter. (Score:2)
The top five countries of emissions per capital, and their total percentage of the world's emissions:
Palau - 0%
Qatar - 0.27%
Bahrain - 0.1%
Kuwait - 0.29%
UAE - 0.57%
Total global contributions by the top 5 per capita emitters: 1.23%
If you concentrate on these countries and get them to reduce their emissions by a staggering 30% you will have done NOTHING to fix the climate problem.
If you want to fix the problem, per capita is a complete red herring. Anybody concentrating on that isn't serious about addressing c
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a different point, and it opens a very valid area of discussion. Talking about production of fossil fuels is far more directly useful than per capita emissions.
Don't worry (Score:3)
I've heard people high up in the next U.S. administration say this climate stuff is a scam, and if anyone knows scams it's these people.
Re: (Score:3)
Their supporters happily post wild accusations and conspiracy theories too. Funny how all of the claims that FEMA is doing evil things and voter fraud all disappeared when Trump got elected.
Wealth is the Best Measure of Emissions (Score:3)
This is not an abstract argument. The issue is who should pay to clean up the mess and prevent future harm. Carbon emissions hang around for a very long time. So we are still living with some of the impacts of the industrial revolution 200 years ago.
The question of whose carbon footprint is that is endless and unanswerable as the discussion of China's exports makes clear. If you assign to the United States all the emissions from all the gas and oil it exports, the numbers change dramatically. But I think the best attribution is to the final user who benefits. That makes wealth the best measure of who owns the carbon. That is also true for individual carbon footprints.
So the question of who should pay to clean it up is to go where the money is. On an international level that means the wealthy countries. But on a personal level it means getting the wealthy to change their behavior and cut back their emissions. They should also pay to clean up the mess and prevent future emissions. The problem is not some lawn care guy driving an old truck that needs 10 gallons of gas to drive 100 miles. Its Bill Gates mansion with a lawn that needs mowing.
Western hypocrisy (Score:2)
since they benefited from those actions... (Score:2)
since these countries benefited from those countries activities that contributed to climate change. Guess they're as liable.
A single example- gasoline.
Takes much mote energy/emissions to manufacture the underlying infrastructure to produce gasoline. From mining materials needed for all the hardware, transportations of those, processing of those goods... then the use of that hardware to extract, process, and transport the crude oil into a gasoline... plus roads, ships, pipelines, etc...
In comparison to the
Sovereignty (Score:2)
A sovereign is a supreme authority within its own territory. It cannot (by definition) be held to any law to which it does not consent.
It is not possible to hold a sovereign nation "legally responsible for the ongoing impacts of climate change" in a court to which it has not ceded jurisdiction. The only way to do so is by force of arms or by negotiation among peers.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to do so is by force of arms or by negotiation among peers.
This is the next step in those negotiations.
Nobody is proposing sending in the UN blue helmets to stop Americans emitting CO2.
Big whoop (Score:2)
"Just give us money and we'll be fine." - Every third-world country.
Re: (Score:3)
Now let’s look at reality, since trends do matter.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re:yes drnb (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to adjust that graph per capita.
Re:yes drnb (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to adjust that graph per capita.
I love how people find a way to bend stats to their personal villain. So let us put that to the test.
Since you posit the metric is simply per capita, so does it then follow that a nation with 20 people, who produce more pollution per capita than the USA, yet not even a blip on the total - Those are they real criminals in this matter. There is no way around it - they produce more per capita.
If we are to actually do something about it, it is perhaps critical to understand that if we take our individual politics to overrule physics,
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide does not care the skin color, or nation of origin or socionomic world status. China's CO2, India's CO2, and the CO2 emitted by the US is all the same. And if we decide - yes, the USA must be punished because of per capita emissions, and India must be allowed to spew more CO2, because they have so many more people, and that is justice.
So we'll argue and come up will utterly silly ideas that CO2 is different depending on the country it was de-sequestered from.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of "per capita" should be to make personal responsibility the focus. If you don't point out who are the most wasteful then they don't do anything and blame someone else for the problem e.g. countries with large populations.
Is sending food to poor nations wasteful? The USA could make a pretty good dent in it's CO2 emissions by not planting, growing, harvesting and shipping food to poor countries. Perhaps stopping exports altogether? Here's some data - imagine how much we could cut our CO2! https://www.ers.usda.gov/topic... [usda.gov]
I'm certain you agree that if the USA went full isolationist, it would be not only a good way to diminish our responsibility and wastefulness, but would make the world a better place. 8^/
Now yes, I'm b
Re: (Score:2)
Well by that metric China could also significantly decrease their CO2 by no longer manufacturing goods for export to other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a deal to me!
Re: (Score:2)
And what good - exactly - does that do? Other than give you the self serving satisfaction of blaming individuals?
The climate doesn't give a good god damn how many people it took to produce X quantity of CO2. It just cares that X is present. Only you give a shit what per capita means. It serves you emotionally, and helps not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Identifying who the greatest CO2 producers are per capita is a step towards where you can make a difference by encouraging people to change their habits. I would call that "giving a shit" in a positive way.
Larger populations are going to produce more CO2 that smaller ones. If they can reduce even a little, then that helps. But populations with more profligate energy habits are giving the rest of the world the middle finger. They should be encouraged to do better.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this solves the problem at all though. That's my point. Giving the right kind of shit, identifying the worst per capita, hoping that behaviors will spill over... wasted effort. Worrying about the wrong thing.
The size of the problem means that if certain groups fail to act, it doesn't matter in the slightest if the others don't. The top 10 worst emitting countries per capital could simply roll over and die, dropping their emissions to zero, and the problem would not be fixed.
Logically, therefore,
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't solve it. But you aren't offering anything else and appear to be missing my point. I'm not saying those emitters shouldn't tone it down, I'm saying that's not where everybody should concentrate. It's like spending a bunch of effort deciding who won last place when it's close.
Re: (Score:2)
The league table of figures on a per-country basis is (mostly) that government's responsibility to figure out how to bring down, although encouraging some personal responsiblity is a part of that too. The per capita league table is (mostly) down to personal responsibility, which will need to be driven by some education/public awareness schemes backed by g
Re: (Score:2)
Great, we make them responsible, USA is responsible, so we magically void their entire country and it never emits c02 again. In fact, our magic powers erase all the c02 they emitted.
Awesome, you're still screwed because the TOTAL c02 is what matters, you fixed nothing and avoided saying something about a country that doesn't give a shit so you have no power there.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can take it to extremes and it breaks down, but among major economies (US is no 1, China no 2, EU no 3) they all have large populations and all need to tackle climate change. None of them are doing enough, but by any reasonable metric China is doing more than the other two.
We will get stats for this year soon, but last year China installed more solar PV in the first 8 months than the US has in its entire history. The scale is staggering. Their emissions should peak this or next year too. They
Re: (Score:2)
Without that, all their building would cease.
It's always easier to get things done by Fiat when you're a dictator. If you're benevolent, it's the most efficient system available. But they never stay benevolent, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Western Democracy literally pays the bills for dictatorships like China. Without that, all their building would cease. It's always easier to get things done by Fiat when you're a dictator. If you're benevolent, it's the most efficient system available. But they never stay benevolent, ever.
And we emit a lot of CO2 growing food for the third world. Takes a lot of fuel to produce 200 billions dollars a year worth of food.
And one thing is for certain, there are millions of people tripping over themselves in the mad rush to thank us! 8^/
Re: (Score:2)
I view it as a challenge for Western Democracy. We need to prove that our system can deliver the results needed to deal with climate change, and provide improvements for the citizens, and do it better than China. Unfortunately I'm not sure it can. The EU might get there, but it's far from certain.
The USA exports around 200 billion dollars a year of food to other countries. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topic... [usda.gov]
Should these countries pay for the carbon emitted? Or should the US in an effort to get itself off the number one villain list, simply stop exporting food. Our plowing, planting, maintaning, harvesting, preparing, shipping to ports, then shipping it across the ocean - at present, the bulk is largely free - should we stop? That would reduce the per capita CO2, that other countries are not emittin
Re: (Score:2)
So if Americans and their lifestyle is killing the planet, shouldn't we stop taking in ANYONE from outside our borders? You don't want to add to the worst polluters totals, right? If this is an existential crisis, I don't see why it shouldn't be on the table! Sorry, all full.
In helping us reduce our CO2, shouldn't we bring back all our manufacturing and just stop trading with China? Shipping is really bad for the environment and not just the air but the oceans as well. We should literally just be producing
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ch... [carbonbrief.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Contradiction [Re:yes drnb] (Score:2)
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide does not care the skin color, or nation of origin or socionomic world status. China's CO2, India's CO2, and the CO2 emitted by the US is all the same.
OK so far. You start out by saying that carbon dioxide does not care about nation of origin. Fair enough.
And if we decide - yes, the USA must be punished because of per capita emissions, and India must be allowed to spew more CO2, because they have so many more people, and that is justice.
Why are you now talking about emissions by nation? You just finished telling us that carbon dioxide does not care about nation of origin,
Re: (Score:2)
Since you posit the metric is simply per capita, so does it then follow that a nation with 20 people, who produce more pollution per capita than the USA, yet not even a blip on the total - Those are they real criminals in this matter. There is no way around it - they produce more per capita.
Absolutely on average each individual in the country of 20 is more culpable than the average person in the USA. Of course in that in that country of 20 there could be 1 individual that pollutes heavily and the other 19 live like monks, but statistics kind of fall apart for very small populations.
However I believe on a per capita basis the USA is even worse since it the populations of the other places are larger
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org] so I don't see how doing it on a per capita basis would aid the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's absurd, people just want to avoid trying to do something about a country that will respond with hostility towards them and tell them off. It's not as fun and doesn't let them feel morally superior.
I'm waiting for them to tell the hurricanes and rising sea levels that as an individual they pollute less so if the bad weather could please go somewhere else that would be great. You could completely removed the USA from emitting c02 and have ever emitted c02 and we'd still be boned by the countries emi
Re: (Score:2)
No its everybody needs to cut back.
Re: (Score:2)
If the people you are assigning blame to, can be changed by drawing lines on a map. Your entire premise is flawed.
A person emitting more CO2 than another is more responsible. And should obviously do more to curtail their polluting ways than a person emitting less. It's not a difficult concept, even for an American to understand.
Difficult? This isn't difficult, mon chichi! Your politics has perhaps blinded you.
Trying to play a per capita game on a total volume situation, isn't as smart as you might believe. Allow me to illustrate it:
Your science tells you that since the emissions per capita is the most important thing regarding CO2 emissions, the more population that a country adds, they can maintain their CO2 emissions the same, while in your eyes, they are becoming more pure and responsible, because the per capita CO2 emissi
Re: (Score:2)
You need to adjust that graph per capita.
But surely over-population is part of the problem. Should it be adjusted per square km?
But India or the US have far more arable land than say China, so maybe they should be expected to have more people. What if we compare emissions per standard arable land area, with more fertile land counting for more. Would that be fair?
Or maybe base it on population levels back when we realised this was a problem, so China gets credit for limiting population growth? There is no one obvious metric.
Re: (Score:2)
China's birth rate is now below replacement level. They had a brutal one child policy for many years. It's hard to see how they could do much more, short of mass murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They actually did commit mass murder with their one child policy.
Alas, historically China has been the site of mass murder via Mao Zedong. I'm not aware of it happening through the one-child policy though. You might have a point regarding the statistically-anomalous increase in baby girls dying during the life of the policy.
Re: yes drnb (Score:2)
What a stupid comment.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the USAs as well as every other western country.
Re: (Score:2)
Per square kilometer would destroy the preferred narrative that per capita provides. Look at Canada compared to other countries.
Per capita: 11th - We like that one. Let's pick on that.
Per square kilometer: 88th - Not useful to the emotional argument
Actual contribution to global emissions: 1.4% - Pretend this doesn't exist.
If you really, truly, want to save the world, India, China, and the United States are your ONLY realistic targets of importance. That is HALF the emissions.
Dinking around with
Re: (Score:2)
Great, go per capita. You found the bad guys.
Remove that nation into a black void. No more c02, problem solved. Oh wait, you're still screwed because it's the total c02 that matters and apparently you can't tell hurricanefookurshetup that you didn't cause this so it'll just go somewhere else and the ocean will recede out of respect to your I didn't do it attitude.
Total c02 is what matters when it comes to our climate. Period. Nature / weather events don't' give you a free pass because you say 'Well, that s
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is an attempt to excuse one problem (pollution) with another (overpopulation).
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at the EU27 vs EU28 numbers; they aren't even close. Croatia was added to the EU in 2007(the 28th member), but it things in that graph don't come close to adding up.
Re: (Score:2)
EU28 is pre-Brexit: EU27 is post-Brexit. The UK was responsible for a lot of innovation in the industrial use of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
EU28 is pre-Brexit: EU27 is post-Brexit. The UK was responsible for a lot of innovation in the industrial use of coal.
The UK no longer has any coal generating capabilities. It was almost non-existent a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you a missing a subtle point in the title of the graph its CUMULATIVE CO2 emissions. That means all if you added Croatia to the EU you would also have to add its historical CO2 emissions as well.
But being cumulative means it is much harder to see who is adding more right now, that is the slope of the graph.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes drnb...The US is most responsible [ourworldindata.org]
Now let’s look at reality, since trends do matter. https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
??
These two graphs are identical; one plotted starting in 1750, while the second only for the last two decades.
They both show that the AC's statement is accurate: the largest amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere was contributed by the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this data?
4,768,873,440 - US in 2020.
China - 12,037,316,110
5 million to 12 million. How is everyone try to say it's the US? By calculating it in a very specific way? Are we just saying who polluted first is responsible and everyone else gets a free pass? Is it "Oh SURE other countries are emitting c02 at 3X the rate but BEFORE it was the US so they still technically pollute more?"
We're talking C02 thats today, what's done has already been done, Unless you can erase the past then we have to take
Re: yes drnb (Score:2)
Why did you put the EU on there when individual countries were named? For example, India is about to surpass the UK and Germany and its cumulative emissions are ramping up much more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You've been living under a rock? Trying hard to remain ignorant? How do you not know this simple fact?
Here it is a third time for the extra slow people...America is the all time leader in emitting excess CO2 [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"We're number one! We're number one! We're num..... Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to know(unless you just love showing your ignorance) that there are different sides to this. You have things like the type of power generation makes a difference. You still have a lot of coal power in use around the world, oil, and natural gas. The more protective of the COAL power plants a government is, the more you can blame that government. Oil and natural gas, the fear of nuclear power to replace the other sources does not help.
You can fault those in the USA who have an obsession with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are wealthier and they use their wealth to buy stuff. Most people I know if given more money would spend it, on more clothes, more travel, nicer stuff etc. It is human nature to want more, if people in other countries where given more wealth they too would consume more. What you are doing is being prejudiced against Americans (I am not an American).
It is time to stop trying to find a scapegoat to blame for our problems and start working together to solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yes drnb (Score:5, Informative)
It might be more interesting to look at the annual CO2 emissions, and then the main polluters in 2023 are the following:
China 34.0%
USA 12.0%
India 7.6%
European Union 6.4%
Russia 5.3%
Japan 2.4%
Iran 2.0%
Data from copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And the trend for the US, EU and Japan is decreasing emissions, while China, India and Iran have increasing emissions by more than 100%!
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe China & co have increased emissions because they are producing evrything you buy in your oh so mighty 'we've got decreasing emissions' countries?
Re:yes drnb (Score:4, Interesting)
China's emissions are expected to peak either this year or by some estimates in 2025, due to the massive investments in renewable energy that the country is doing.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
I'm not saying China is any kind of model pupil regarding emissions, if someone (I don't claim you are) thinks that they are not doing anything about it, it's time to update your knowledge about the situation.
China was late to set any proper emission reduction targets, mostly because once the government there officially declares that they will accomplish something, they really go for it in order not to lose face. So it was to be expected that when they in 2020 said China's emissions will peak before 2030, that this was not empty promise, and now it seems they will get there several years ahead of schedule. They are still a long way from carbon neutrality though (currently their plan is to do that by 2060 which is not ambitious enough).
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting if you are looking to direct blame away from the countries that benefited the most from causing climate change, perhaps.
That's the issue here. The Western Lifestyle (TM) is built on a history of massive emissions. Much of our wealth was created from burning fossil fuels. Using some of it to help developing nations that are having to deal with the consequences of climate change, and to help them avoid emitting as much CO2 as we did on the path to modern living, seems entirely fair.
Re: (Score:2)
The blame game is interesting but difficult. As you are aware, there are things that should be considered in addition to current emissions: the total historical emissions, emissions per capita, rich people who consume a disproportionate amount of CO2, and don't forget fossil fuel companies who have distorted public opinion about science.
Regardless of where the blame is placed, emissions must be reduced.
All depends how you look at it.... (Score:2)
If it wasn't for the U.S. burning all those fossil fuels, you'd also have the Arab countries stuck in terrible third-world conditions, with practically nothing of value to export to the rest of the world.
Their entire economy is based around the oil that the West showed them how to drill for and in fact, built most of the oil rigs in the first place, to get them started down the road to production, OPEC, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich countries should absolutely help the poor but not because of some sense of responsibility to address past wrongs, but because its the right thing to do to help people now who need it. Also because its in every ones best interest to do so. Even if you could argue that global warming is the poor countries fault rich countries should still help and not let those people suffer necessarily. To me the whole argument is pointless exercise in futility that just distracts us from doing what needs to be done.
Cumulative [Re:yes drnb] (Score:2)
Note that that data is cumulative, perhaps since 1750 when the graph begins. It might be more interesting to look at the annual CO2 emissions,
Why?
The discussion is about who caused the problem. The current problem is caused by the sum of all the CO2 emissions, not by current emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you be interested in knowing who's to blame? Will that fix the weather and stop people starving? We need do as much as we can possibly do to fix the problem. I was born in the USSR, in the what is now the Ukraine, I have not lived there since I was 4, would I somehow be more responsible for the attack on the Ukraine by Russia if I happened to be born in Moscow?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Europeans, on average walk, bike and use public transportation much more often then your average American. In America, most of us won't walk a mile if the car is sitting right there. The exception is people actually exercising but vast majority just go to gyms anyway and average American isn't that fit. Likely due to not enough walking! Ba zing!
America is also REALLY big and we tend to drive decently long distances all the time. We're a car country and have been since we could be.
So yeah, it doe
Re: (Score:2)
Take me to your leader (Score:2)
When the aliens land and look for which nation is running Earth. They will see a country that is responsible for nearly every problem, has the largest military, and nobody seems to be able to stop as the most logical candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
That's rather optimistic. The aliens will probably make the US in charge of middle management.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant, in the real world the people with power get to set the rules (kind of what having power means) even if a court rules that the USA should be liable it will make do difference at all the USA will just ignore that ruling, it will just waste valuable time arguing while the problem remains. No democratic country in the world would willing accept a ruling that materially reduces the quality of life of their citizens. All this is doing is paying lawyers a lot of money to do nothing of any real meaning
Re:Nor anything else (Score:4, Interesting)
and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions
And very little to ... anything good ...
Agreed. You make a very interesting and very good point. The idea that countries like the US should be punished because silly things like CO2 per capita are the real problem does make me wonder.
Thought experiment 1. For all of the h8-red, we here in the USA have done some good, example is sending food to other countries, That takes fuel for growing, harvesting, and shipping. Should that stop?
Side advantage for this - since a lot of people would starve to death, that would lower their per capita CO2 emissions. Pretty macabre and heartless, but since that is some people's metric... Thought experiment 2. In WW2, should the USA simply have stayed isolationist, and not spent a penny on Lend-lease, nor put ships in the water, planes in the air, or tanks on the ground, along with all the energy used in building them. The amount of Carbon released by the USA in fighting the Axis powers was huge. So it makes better sense to just allow Germany, Italy and Japan take over whatever they desired, with no fighting back, that way we wouldn't have de sequestered all of that CO2, and the world would be in a better place, amirite?
So should the US have traded off fighting the axis powers with releasing as little CO2 as possible?
De-sequestered greenhouse gases is a clear and present danger to all of us. People using half-assed political concepts like per-capita emissions can't be stupid, right? I mean they know that CO2 is CO2 is CO2 don't they? This is not a restricted country/region of origin product like Pecorino Romano cheese. If it isn't from there, it isn't the same. CO2 is the same stuff no matter who farts it out.
Once we get it in our noggins that we are all in this mess together, and that we all need to do our part. Not make up questionable ideas like CO2 per capita which fail upon the test. Maybe we can make progress on this, and understand that stopping food exports would be a great way to lower CO2 emissions. Not a very humane way, but one of the ways.