World Faces New Danger of 'Economic Denial' in Climate Fight, Cop30 Head Says (theguardian.com) 219
The world is facing a new form of climate denial -- not the dismissal of climate science, but a concerted attack on the idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the crisis, the president of global climate talks has warned. The Guardian reports: Andre Correa do Lago, the veteran Brazilian diplomat who will direct this year's UN summit, Cop30, believes his biggest job will be to counter the attempt from some vested interests to prevent climate policies aimed at shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing.
"There is a new kind of opposition to climate action. We are facing a discredit of climate policies. I don't think we are facing climate denial," he said, referring to the increasingly desperate attempts to pretend there is no consensus on climate science that have plagued climate action for the past 30 years. "It's not a scientific denial, it's an economic denial." This economic denial could be just as dangerous and cause as much delay as repeated attempts to deny climate science in previous years, he warned in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.
"There is a new kind of opposition to climate action. We are facing a discredit of climate policies. I don't think we are facing climate denial," he said, referring to the increasingly desperate attempts to pretend there is no consensus on climate science that have plagued climate action for the past 30 years. "It's not a scientific denial, it's an economic denial." This economic denial could be just as dangerous and cause as much delay as repeated attempts to deny climate science in previous years, he warned in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.
Economics (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus there's been a decades long astroturf and lobbying campaign against any kind of carbon taxing scheme. Combine that with 4 decades of general tax cuts and the wealthy don't have any incentive to change behavior, they have too much money!
Re:Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to see the wealthy change first....
The wealthy cannot change, they are addicted to affluence. One of the great lies we tell ourselves is how great wealth is great freedom and that implies the freedom to change. However, I would argue that not only are the rich slaves to their wealth but it has spoiled them rotten. Wealthy people become vain, arrogant and self-indulgent. They often put the blame for their decisions upon their subordinates and in the process become irresponsible and uncaring.
We are where we are because of the rich and the powerful, not because of the poor and the powerless. Obviously.
Re:Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Wealth can definitely be isolating and from what looks like to be, mentally handicapping in way. How many podcasts out there are a group of millionaires or billionaires just talking at eachother about what they think is important and because they have money they feel what they think is important is important. There was a story of how many group texts there are amongst these folks and the tech moguls like David Sacks and how they use that as communication, like why or how would you ever take an opinion or idea outside of anyone with at least 8 zeros in their bank account.
As Thomas Paine surmised way back in the 18th century, excess and uncontrolled wealth has anti-democratic problems as we are seeing today
https://taxpolicycenter.org/ta... [taxpolicycenter.org]
Re: Economics (Score:2)
Re:Economics (Score:4, Insightful)
The wealthy cannot change, they are addicted to affluence. One of the great lies we tell ourselves is how great wealth is great freedom and that implies the freedom to change.
One of the great lies is that people must choose either wealth or reducing their "footprint". Show people a means to lower CO2 emissions while lowering their costs for energy and convenience then people will change. Electric cars promise lower costs of ownership while offering the convenience to never have to stop at a filling station, the comfort of things like the car heating or cooling itself in the garage before their daily commute without filling the garage with dangerous fumes, and with the lack of those fumes no increase in global warming and air pollution. I can give other examples along the same lines.
I'm seeing more electric cars on the roads around here, hybrids and full battery-electric. If this were a matter of people with money having to choose affluence or reduced CO2 emissions then would Tesla sell as many high end cars as they do?
As production of batteries suitable for electric vehicles increase I expect to see more budget minded EVs on the market. People will be attracted to an electric car that offers the convenience of not needing to stop for fuel in a car used almost exclusively for short daily drives, even if that means the car doesn't have all the comforts of a Tesla or whatever people consider a high-end badge on the hood. If EVs offer a lower TCO as promised, and I expect that they do, then that means more wealth and affluence to go around in the future.
We are where we are because of the rich and the powerful, not because of the poor and the powerless. Obviously.
Obviously the powerless have no influence on where we are because that is the definition of powerless. The poor in the USA are rarely powerless as they have the freedom to spend what little wealth they have as they choose, and they have the power to vote in elections. When offered choices that benefit them, and those they care about, then the collection of those with less wealth can have considerable influence. Those with the power to act in ways that that the poor like will collect some of their wealth and power. It might sound counterproductive to seek wealth from the poor but nobody trades down. In a free society every transaction increases wealth for both parties. If a poor man gives money to a wealthy man to get an electric car in return then both benefited from that. Because the poor man is now burning less fossil fuel as a result then that means a gain in air quality and less global warming, it also means money saved as electricity is rarely more expensive than gasoline for miles traveled.
I assume the affluent will want clean air as much as those in relative poverty. The affluent can't have that clean air if those with less wealth are lacking in options for clean fuel and electricity. That should motivate the affluent to seek ways to bring clean fuel and electricity to everyone, including the poor. That's likely why wealthy celebrities spend time advocating for clean energy options.
Re: (Score:3)
I have often disagreed with your posts about power generation over the years, so it's a genuine pleasure to be able to say I think you're absolutely spot on here, and couldn't agree with you more. Technology can't solve the entirety of every problem, but it's sheer idiocy to think that implies it can't help solve many problems. And EVs undoubtedly help solve many problems, from decarbonisation to noise and air pollution, while also delivering better experiences for many, many people.
Re: Economics (Score:2)
2) Most people don't run their cars without the door open.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you are a poor American, you are still far richer than most non-Americans on the planet. So why don't you go first and start living like a Congolese peasant?
Re: Economics (Score:2)
Solution is carbon tax (Score:3)
The rich will always consume more resources compared to the poor. This is not going to change unless you want to switch to communism.
What matters is that the rich pay the pollution cost which is a consequence of their lifestyle. Currently they don't. But with a carbon tax they would.
With a carbon tax, the rich would need to pay a lot more for their private jet or super yacht.
People (rich or poor) won't reduce their CO2 emissions unless they have an incentive to. And again, the best way to do that is through
Re: (Score:2)
Soo, you do not actually see the problem? Or you think it will only impact the rich? Do you think at all?
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to see the wealthy change first.
Why would they? The World was given to them by God. It is peons like you overpopulating the planet. YOU are the problem, not them. Their jet doesn't really effect the world that much, but billions of scum like you... you have a real effect.
Re: Economics (Score:2)
Re:Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
a better attitude would be to hold those who make the decisions accountable for the consequences of them
it's not the powerless causing the problems
Re: Economics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So scrap capitalism. Hey I'm all for it but that's a different discussion.
The question is: who do you put in the place of Stalin or Mao?
You could move to North Korea and see how that works out.
Re: Economics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Economics (Score:2)
"real communism" requires the dictatorship to make people go along with the stupidity. Real communism has been tried in many places. It always results in mass death and misery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You mistake the difference between the modern and primitive world that we live in to something that could potentially exist in another 100 years. The basic issue is that when supplies of items are limited, then it makes sense to limit who gets those items or how many of them people should be able to have. If we have an unlimited amount of something, then the idea of charging for it is just being selfish.
So, because we don't have unlimited resources, then pure socialism doesn't work, because you can't al
Re: (Score:2)
Your method is badmouthing the attempts as "redistribution of wealth demanded by hypocrites", but the effect is exactly as described in the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Well technically the rich are polluting much more than the poor, so yes, any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions will to some extend redistribute wealth. But this is not stealing. This is basically stopping people from over-polluting for free.
There is a well-known market-based solution to the climate change program. It's called a carbon tax. It's the preferred solution of the right-wing in most of the world (the alternative being government deciding who can or can't emit CO2). But somehow in the USA the right-w
Re: (Score:3)
It seems you didn't understand the tax. Most people got more in cash-back compared to the amount of money they were spending on the tax.
So in short, only the big polluters were losing significant amount of money. And they deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting waste and fraud in medicare, I would think, would be something MOST US citizens would be in favor of...?
And for these entitlements...again, I'd think it would be common sense to make sure they were ONLY available and provided to US citizens....not to people who broke the law and came here illegally...?
And for able bodied younger adults....on the dole..why should they not have a lit
AI (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes not at all caused by the huge uptick in fossil fuel consumption caused by unwanted never asked for LLM AI services.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not clear. Do you think CO2 molecules are somehow different when emitted from a super yacht?
economic denial - Happened in the 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
This ship has sailed...
Started with Nordhaus modelling that anything happening under a roof won't be affected by climate change (1994 paper if memory serves)
Continued with every economist and his dog arguing about cost/benefit analysis, while climate scientists were pointing to uncertainties in models.
Now we're at the ultimate scam with "net zero" being the accounting trick goal. Physics doesn't care about human accounting.
Actuaries for re-insurers have actually done the risk analysis (as opposed to cost/benefit), and their results aren't too optimistic : https://actuaries.org.uk/plane... [actuaries.org.uk] .
Having a year over 2C has entered the 1% probability of happening before 2030. https://wmo.int/publication-se... [wmo.int]
In 2011, a year over 1.5C in the next decade had a probability of 10%. Happened in 2024.
1.5C is passed, 2C will be too.
Re: (Score:3)
> In 2011, a year over 1.5C in the next decade had a probability of 10%. Happened in 2024.
That was supposed to be 1%...
Re: (Score:2)
This ship has sailed... Started with Nordhaus modelling that anything happening under a roof won't be affected by climate change (1994 paper if memory serves)
I have no idea what that sentence means.
Oh ... (Score:2)
And here I thought they were finally talking about the "denial" that climate regulations have real and significant economic costs.
Re: Oh ... (Score:3)
Sure but (Score:2)
Let us not forget how these delegates are jetting in on their private planes, barreling down a freshly paved highway carved through the rainforest - all just to have a conversation that could easily be a video call.
Desperate "game over" vibes (Score:3, Insightful)
The denial is that the grift is up. Like it or not, most of the world is going forwards with fossil fuels and more are being burned that ever before. Sermons about the fight against climate change from the elite class are not working. If they were serious about climate change, they wouldn't go to COP using hundreds of private jets.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were serious about climate change, they wouldn't go to COP using hundreds of private jets.
Ever wonder if they actually ARE serious about climate change?
According to them (representing 0.0001% of the human race), they are not the problem to solve here. Not even with all of their excess. And since humans operate mostly off perspective, they're 100% right in their minds.
Don't assume perspective is any less warped down the financial food chain. Plebians running around with disposable addiction in one hand and a recycle bin in the other justify putting "environmentalist/activist" listed on their f
Re:Desperate "game over" vibes (Score:5, Informative)
We now have the technology to fix this. Some countries are deploying it rapidly. The issues are entirely political at this point.
China has likely peaked for emissions. If they can, a developing nation rapidly headed towards a "Western" lifestyle, then the whole world can. Those countries on down side of the curve can go as fast as them too, and use it as a huge economic opportunity, not a cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The denial is that the grift is up. Like it or not, most of the world is going forwards with fossil fuels and more are being burned that ever before. Sermons about the fight against climate change from the elite class are not working. If they were serious about climate change, they wouldn't go to COP using hundreds of private jets.
I believe that if people were serious about global warming then they'd demand more nuclear power. Demand for nuclear power is going up.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fac... [whitehouse.gov]
Well, maybe people aren't getting excited about addressing global warming but rather the age of existing nuclear power plants appears is driving the construction of new nuclear power plants. I expect that as experience is gained in constructing new nuclear power the cost will
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, china already has shrinking co2 exhaustion despite rising energy usage, Europe has been on the Co2 decline for quite a while and this change was sped up by the 2022 invasion of the ukraine! India soon will have peak oil. The USA and their backwards thinking government which wants to live in the 19th century is not the world!
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:2)
What they're trying to say is capitalism is incompatible with the current climate emergency situation.
either capitalism goes extinct, or we won't be able to do anything
Re: Capitalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance might go out the door first. Or at least natural disasters, including fire, will be uninsurable. And since that's the most common reason for even having insurance, many houses will stop being insured.
Re: Capitalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.....I think I'll STILL choose capitalism .......
Re: (Score:2)
What they're trying to say is capitalism is incompatible with the current climate emergency situation.
either capitalism goes extinct, or we won't be able to do anything
Who has cleaner air and water? Capitalist nations like Canada, UK, and USA? Or communist nations like North Korea, China, and Russia?
Capitalism means private individuals and groups can act on whatever issues concern them most without some politburo signing off on it. Certainly in every capitalist nation there will still be a need for construction permits and such but that's rarely anything more than a routine matter of showing the government that the building isn't going to fall down in a stiff breeze, o
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism means private individuals and groups can act on whatever issues concern them most without some politburo signing off on it.
Crony capitalism means that private individuals and groups can spend money to suppress action on whatever issues profit them most. And this is the dominant paradigm in climate action, or lack thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
Crony capitalism is not capitalism, if it were capitalism then you'd not need to use any modifier to make your point.
Crony capitalism could be defined as an incumbent industry developing influence on the government to keep out competition. If there's a government restriction on competition then that is not capitalism as capitalism requires freedom of trade.
I expect someone is just itching to type out how there is no place on Earth with true freedom of trade. I agree, but such restrictions doesn't mean the
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism means private individuals and groups can act on whatever issues concern them most without some politburo signing off on it.
Crony capitalism means that private individuals and groups can spend money to suppress action on whatever issues profit them most. And this is the dominant paradigm in climate action, or lack thereof.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism, like <adjective> justice is not justice and soy milk is not milk.
Re: (Score:2)
Crony capitalism is not capitalism
Yes, of course it is. What do you imagine capitalism means? No capitalism is more capitalistic than crony capitalism.
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, we're back to normal service -- a post from you that I vehemently disagree with.
It is economically illiterate to describe North Korea, China and Russia as communist. I mean, the Soviet Union quite famously fell in the late 80s, and was not replaced by a communist government in Russia. And China has clearly organised itself as a capitalist state, albeit one with active government intervention. As a reminder, the US currently has a shit ton of active government intervention in business decisions, including the president attempting to coerce a large tech company to act in a way he prefers. North Korea is a dynastic totalitarian state. Communism as an ideology has some tough things to say about dynasties, which is why the Tsars of Russia no longer rule the country. Putin's Russia is also a right wing authoritarian state. It's probably best characterised as fascist, because the oligarchs' companies act at the behest of the ruler as agencies of the state, and are dependent on him for their continued existence.
Are these countries' economies organised strikingly differently from the US or the UK or EU countries? Sure. Is the air cleaner in the latter countries than the former? On average, yes. Is there a causative link between these two facts. To some degree, although there's lots of confounding factors. But this cannot possibly be reasonably described as a showdown between capitalism and communism. Words have specific meanings, and communism is not what you see here.
Just to be clear: communism was bad, and did cause terrible pollution in the Soviet Union, in Mao's China, etc. As an ideology it's been pretty damn harmful to humanity when in action. But capitalism's record is hardly unblemished either.
Re: (Score:3)
The North Koreans call themselves the Democratic Republic of North Korea!
We don’t have to go along with other people’s bullshit.
The CCP isn’t communist, and the North Koreans aren’t democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather either capitalism goes extinct or it will go extinct by civilization doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha what an idiot. Look out everybody everybody the evil totalitarian dictatorship of Norway is on the warpath. Lol keep dropping those "truths" on us.
Not new at all (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worth pointing out the tactic being employed, but economic denial is just an alternative angle to achieve the same delaying. "Why bother?" or "Too hard." type of talk. Also includes deflecting, red-herrings, and throwing blame at others. The objective is to delay action.
It's all very similar to a campaign of FUD, except it's used for inaction rather than direct killing on a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell which side you're criticizing. I'm not sure you can either. And I am sure it doesn't matter because it applies equally.
I don't think we are facing climate denial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the ole story about the Times article, about as real as the "scientists talked about global cooling in the '70s" story.
Well, let's assume such an article existed (it didn't) and recall how that was supposedly solved back then, shall we?
The solution was - drumroll - shutting down the polluting industry - horse carriages - and replacing them with a regulated public service - the metropolitan mass transit network, built with the revolutionary electric trains and trams.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's an argument that cars are less polluting than horses. Which has a definite validity in any small area, as most of the pollution from cars leaves the area. But it stops working at a global scale.
So, yes, if you accept that it was a real crisis (it was), then it's a good analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the solution to the HorsePoopCopalypse, it needs to make life better for the common man. If you do that, you won't need a totalitarian government to force people to adopt it.
time waster says what? (Score:2)
At every COP conference they agree that global warming is a big problem, then they agree to do nothing substantive about it.
Funded by billions from Big Oil (Score:5, Insightful)
This is well organized global campaign funded with billions from Big Oil.
Massive social media presence and multi-layered... with fall-back - hoping people will get lost at one of the levels:
1. there is no climate change
2. there is but it is natural
3. It is not natural but not a big problem
4. it is a big problem but we cannot do anything about it
5. we can do but others emit more and should do it first
6, we can but it will cost too much
Re: (Score:2)
You've reminded me of this wonderful moment from Yes Minister:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that will go well. But I think we finally know what causes the Fermi-Paradox...
Don't worry (Score:2)
It's all going to be OK, Bernie Sanders can fly in his private jet. The economic argument is easy, does adapting cost more than the (futile) attempt to switch from CO2 emissions to a Net Zero economy? Given the lack of interest in reducing CO2 by major emitters (China, India, Gore,Sanders) it would seem that costing the price of adaptation would be a wise approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok moderation bot.
Throwing money down a rat hole isn't working? (Score:2)
We need a bigger rathole!
AND ALL THE MONEY!!!
Assessment of Assessments??? (Score:2)
for many Economy protecting the environment (Score:3)
Re: for many Economy protecting the environment (Score:2)
This isn't new. (Score:2)
Economic denial is pretty much the bedrock of why climate change denial exists in the first place. If it didn't have the potential to impact the economy in a negative way, we wouldn't see so much effort put into denying climate change or trying to refute climate change. It's *ALWAYS* been about the economic impact. The fact that this person just figured that out shouldn't be a huge story. It's the reality we live in. *EVERYTHING* is measured by its economic impact, because profit and money are literally the
The world would rather have number go up (Score:2)
Been seeing loads of this for a few years now (Score:2)
Particularly in relation to transport (public transport, active transport, EVs, infrastructure) and energy (renewables, storage), where the claims have been that it's all ruinous despite the fact that it's quite clearly not, which is why individuals and companies in developing world economies are rapidly deploying solar to reap the benefit of cheap access to power that's an order of magnitude more reliable than national grids prone to blackouts.
So species suicide then? (Score:2)
But keep the economy going? Yep, sounds like a _smart_ plan...
Does anyone really care? (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to me policymakers have ever taken climate change seriously.
Carbon tax schemes are just another excuse to generate tax revenue. Proceeds rarely went to related R&D or other programs that had anything to do with climate change.
Counterproductive vanity mandates against natural gas, rooftop PV on new constructions, levying offset taxes unique to EVs... all just throw away limited resources which could have been directed to far more impactful ends or are actively harmful to the cause.
Bipartisa
Re:only danger to the world (Score:5, Informative)
"covid vaccine scam"? Errrr.....you've lost money due to the "covid vaccine scam"?
Would these be same vaccines that saved millions of lives? Covid killed over 1 million Americans. That's a lot of stiffs. It would have been a lot worse if not for those vaccines.
You do understand that catching the disease and not dying means you will have much less prospect of dying in the future due to immunological protection. That's what vaccines provide. Except that you have much less of a chance of dying if you get an effective vaccine, which the covid vaccines were.
It isn't difficult to understand, Einstein.
Re: only danger to the world (Score:2)
Re:only danger to the world (Score:4, Informative)
The first real world test of RNA vaccines was, indeed, one of the greatest victories in the history of preventative medicine. No question about it. And COVID was, indeed, a deadly pandemic. But it was also one of the most corrupt, economically damaging scams in modern history. [umn.edu] The pandemic part is over, but the scam continues.
Just a few days ago, there was yet another fear mongering story about "the latest variant" and a huge spike in cases. Except when you check the actual numbers the "huge spike" amounted to about 20,000 deaths per year - if those weekly number stayed where they were for a year. Sounds like a lot, but in the average year, that's 2/3 the number the influenza kills, and in a bad year, more like 1/6th the number of flu deaths. Is there news coverage over flu deaths? No. It's not newsworthy, because it doesn't cause panic and hysteria (and thus, sell advertising, and serve the political types' quest to get reelected until they're a 86 years old and too senile to read complete sentences from a note card in their hand [amazon.com]).
It is entirely possible, likely even, and these days, inevitable, for something to be a serious crisis and a scam at the same time.
Re: only danger to the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every life has an economic value. In some cases, it's negative. I'll leave it to you to (incorrectly) guess at who that might be.
Re: only danger to the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. More like fundamental evil fucks like you.
Re: (Score:3)
The common person is as much a part of the problem as any other entity. You don't get special dispensation for being "common".
Re: (Score:2)
The common person is as much a part of the problem as any other entity.
Blaming the victim never helped solve any problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Every person has agency. You're not a brainless slave. You contribute to emissions just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Every person has agency. You're not a brainless slave.
As far as I know, neither are you, so it's puzzling why you're not blaming the people who decide what options we will have, and want to blame the people just trying to pay their bills in a corrupt system instead.
Re:Dear COP30... (Score:4, Informative)
I can't tell whether this is deflection or denialism, or just someone with serious mental health issues. Or all three.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling. Mental masturbation, while he waits for the lotion to ease the chafing before he gets back to the regular kind.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not even need to read the text to see the mental dysfunctionality....
Re:Dear COP30... (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate change is going to harm poor people far far more than wealthy people. In fact, it's likely in many parts of the world to send mortality rates of those near or below the poverty line skyrocketing (I would posit even in parts of the developed world this is already happening). The idea that fighting climate change is somehow hurting poor people is perverse, and simply a form of rhetorical deflection. The people making these arguments generally aren't poor at all, but simply trying to justify doing nothing to pad their own pockets, and couldn't give a damn whether poor people were hurt or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is going to harm poor people far far more than wealthy people.
Which is why rich people, who actually could change things, do not. Instead, they use it as an excuse to grab more and more wealth for themselves, as they always have.
People are getting wise to "Do as I say, not as I do."
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck is taxing poor people? And that climate changes doesn't disprove AGW. Unless you're claiming there is magic that inverts thermodynamic processes, raising the thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere inevitably leads to more energy capture. Fuck me, do you know anything about physics?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Claiming that it is a choice between a strong economy or reducing global warming sounds like a false dichotomy. I recall seeing many times how wind, solar, and storage is cheaper than fossil fuels. If true then it is only a matter of time that we see more wealth and lower CO2 emissions. The changes needed to get there will not happen over night. It takes time to build everything for clean and low cost energy.
What would help speed things along is convincing people that we will need to open mines to get t
Re: (Score:2)
France has a co2-per-capita 1/3 of the US and Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
France has a co2-per-capita 1/3 of the US and Canada.
Most CO2 emissions in the USA are from industrial sources.
Trying to boil that down to "per capita" is total nonsense.
The GP's post's point seems to be (I don't make so many positive assumptions on slashdot in particular any more, people can accidentally trip over a good point while making a bad one) that actions have consequences which can include CO2 release. The European nations that chose to purchase fossil fuels from Russia made Russia's attack on Ukraine possible, and just like the USA shares responsib
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we care where the co2 comes from if we are comparing nation states, it all ends up in the same place in the end. That's a fallacious distraction argument.
We use per capita because it levels out ALL the sources for a nation and because some sources are easier to supplant than others.
Also "most" in general doesn't mean "less than 1/4" which is what industry accounts for in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we care where the co2 comes from
You only have to care where it comes from if you care about solving the problem. Guess you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Conflation of two different things. All i stated was France has 1/3 the Co2 per person than the US or Canada. Is that fact incorrect?
Re: (Score:2)
Conflation of two different things. All i stated was France has 1/3 the Co2 per person than the US or Canada. Is that fact incorrect?
Yes, and I just got done explaining why above.
Re: (Score:2)
So if it's incorrect how much CO2 per per person does France emit?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you are abysmally stupid without tellimg me you are abysmally stupid. Great job!