In the face of scientific evidence and statistical evidence that we as a species are exacerbating climate changes,
Two of the three nations pumping the atmosphere with more harmful gases,
decide to play economic "prosperity" against the good of the species?
One leader denies that there is a problem. Denies that 200 plus years of industrialization has had no effects.
Another (with the silent acquiescence of the third largest polluter) claims a birthright of economic development and status.
So I quit. I will no longer attempt to lower my own carbon footprint.
I will eat, drink and drive like crazy, and be merry.
Tomorrow be damned.
The fish of the human species is rotting from the head.
4
What’s the carbon footprint of Airforce One every weekend to Mar Lago? Just saying. If everyone lived that way....
4
@Kenneth Brady
You tell 'em Mr. Brady. And as for you, Amerika, while you sit at home munching on chips and dip watching some sporting event and…
meanwhile … a few hundred more children die of starvation somewhere, thanks to Donald and his bud who rules Arabia and kills at will. But no big deal, right, Right? We have bigger issues like, what’s Puti got up his sleeve to help out his bud Donald today, eh?
Go Patriots! Stick it to ‘em Eagles!
Oh! and pass the chips, will ya, Hun?
Great dip!
2
Old men dither while the world burns.
Same old story.
Too late anyway, sorry.
1
Donald clearly got the punchline, and it was he.
Who thought that one person could single handedly wipe out the entire planet because he is so greedy for money?
7
China should eat our climate innovation lunch for the next 2 years.
Unless a real effort is made toward electric cars for the majority of the population, China purchases over 23 million gas vehicles a year , the US closer to 17 million. If this does not significantly change to electric ocvrr the next decade it is over with respect to global warming.
We have 12 years, the professionals say. That's not we can wait 12 years, that's we should have started yesterday, all hands on deck. The evidence is mounting now. We've known since the 1980s.
Cut out the waste and start paying attention. This is a huge problem, and very few people have any idea how distracted we are or how exactly backwards we are going. Every spectacle, every screaming event, and all our 2D focus.
Sustainable living begins with spending way less time with passive entertainment and "likes" and apps that make the young billionaires while providing roman circuses and taking away jobs with benefits.
Please. Take a walk, meet people's eyes, put down the phone!
4
Sorry, I forgot the link on past evidence:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html
Apologies for the consecutive posts.
1
Don't forget that India too has a very large population (currently more than China) which is eager for modern comforts. And their air, like China's, only worse, is poisoning lots of people while they focus on mining coal (fact) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace (kills 120,000 per year, estimated 20 million new asthma cases per year).
For billions, clean running water, let alone hot and cold, is a luxury.
We have an all-fired nerve thinking we are somehow more human than those who struggle to get by. "We seem to have an aversion to national self-criticism in general. We began as a nation of rabble-rousers, bent on change. But now, patriotism is often severely defined as acccepting our country to be a perfect finished product." (Barbara Kingsolver, about "The Lacuna")
The Chinese are taking over the world, with Trump's help. But they at least have a relationship with the truth about climate, and are aiming to do better.
Only Trump could try to go backwards, along with his "people". He is running an in your face presidency, supported by the Republican Taliban, without regard to the future or consequences.
This will not end well.
2
Every time there is major global recession carbon dioxide emissions decrease a little, if only temporary. Seems like a trade war should lower carbon emissions. Then there is some anonymous thing to blame less economic prosperity on
"A United Nations scientific report issued this fall warned that, if emissions continued to rise at the current rate, the planet would warm so fast that it could lead to widespread food shortages, wildfires, and floods."
I'm not sure whether it's the author's interpretation or the actual UN report that says warming "could" lead to famines, fires and floods. In any case, it should read "[warming] has and will continue to to lead to widespread food shortages, wildfires, and floods."
8
I am a little surprised the author thought that all the happy talk about international cooperation on preventing climate change was anything more than shining folks on. Seriously? And even if the participants in such talks were themselves serious, how do they expect to persuade me to turn off the A/C units from May through September, turn the thermostats on my multiple natural-gas furnaces down in winter, and park my gas-powered car.
And most importantly, who can turn off the worldwide baby-making machine? That is the problem climate experts don’t seem to want to discuss—or the press chooses not to cover. When the overpopulation problem is addressed I will think seriously about buying an electric car.
5
@Duane Coyle
It seems that you've smugly decided that if the problem isn't solved for you, you certainly don't intend to do you part.
4
Granted that China may be "effectively exporting its carbon footprint" by building coal plants in Africa, but doesn't the US do likewise —on a far grander scale—by relying on factories outside its borders for the bulk of its consumer goods?
11
The problem is not political. The problem is (speaking as an American) us. We don't want to change how we live, instead expecting technology and politics to somehow save us.
The holiday seasons are here, and the automobile ads are more numerous than ever. Sickening.
10
The problem is both political and “us”. The biggest contributors of greenhouse gases are industrial. No one is going to stop using electricity or driving their cars, and the vast majority can’t afford the renewable energy version of these “necessities”. Greenhouse gases need to be regulated by governments, plain and simple. Yes, we can boycott products to help, but I doubt you’re planning to turn your electricity off and stop using transportation. If you want to go visit your grandparents in Ireland, you’re not gonna say “sorry, Grandma.. I’ll never see you again because I refuse to fly on a gas guzzling airplane”. Gotta be realistic here.
1
@Kenneth Brady:
One of the more sadly negative developments in the automobile technology front is Dodge's decision to cancel my and other customers orders for the 2019 840 Horsepower Dodge Demon and instead substitute the Dodge Hellcat with 43 fewer horsepower @797HP. I know that we are all called upon to make sacrifices to fight global warning, but this is excessive.
On the positive side, I have been reliably informed by some of the earlier buyers that I will be able to regain about 30 of those lost horsepower by removing the catalytic converters. So its not all doom and gloom from where I sit!
2
@Kenneth Brady
You nailed it!
US-China friction has nothing to do with the collapse of international cooperation on climate change. That's down to the world's largest economy - which not surprisingly is also the world's largest consumer and the largest polluter. The US has chosen as its leader an imbecile who believes global warming is a hoax. Trump has scuttled every environmental protection at home and abandoned every international commitment the US had made to fight greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile the world's second largest economy suffers a dissocative disorder which sees it expanding coal fired generation at breakneck speed even as its chokes on the resulting emissions. China's participation in the fight against global warming - tepid though it might be - is driven by outrage from its own citizens. Even in that autocratic state, government is slowly bending to the will of its people when it comes to pollution while at the same time a democratic country like the US is doubling down on the environmentally degrading practices that are largely responsible for our current predicament.
It's easier for some people to dismiss droughts, raging infernos, ice melt, sea rise, hurricanes and other extreme impacts of global warming. It's a little harder to ignore the prevalence of air so filthy that people are forced to stay indoors. Until Trump's push for coal puts more face masks on Americans, there may be little public pressure for change. By then of course it may be too late.
6
Remember, the Chinese want to preserve those 15 feet above sea level military bases, I mean islands they just built up in the Pacific.
2
@Richard Mclaughlin - and the US Navy is worried about coastal bases all around the world.
"The sea level in Annapolis is predicted to rise between 0.6 and 3.6 feet (.18 to 1.1 meters) by 2050, a U.S. Naval Academy oceanography professor said Monday in a briefing about an advisory council helping the riverside academy make decisions on flood-related matters."
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/12/04/us-naval-academy-board-hears-about-handling-sea-level-rise/
"What if the U.S. Navy’s main base in Norfolk, Virginia sinks?
It could happen. And it’s not an isolated problem, as climate change alters coastlines all over the world.
A report from the American Security Project identifies Naval Station Norfolk as America’s fifth most endangered military base. The report also lists Eglin in Florida, Diego Garcia, Bahrain and Guam as being particularly vulnerable to climate change."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy%E2%80%99s-biggest-base-sinking-25062
Quite sickening. Watching 3 major networks cover environmental catastrophe d'jour. Using as ratings ploy. We need Democracy Now style reporting -covering the why not the what. The cause not the effect. More pressure needed for negligent, reckless leadership on climate change policy
1
There is a non-zero chance that the world has already blown past several critical tipping points, rendering these negotiations fairly pointless.
One of the most dangerous scenarios involves permafrost melting -- which would trigger multiple, cascading and irreversible feed-forward mechanisms resulting in accelerated systemic decompensation and total extinction of planetary life.
The other critical scenario involves detection of progressive anomalies in core biochemical processes -- for example, impaired electrical conduction within neural tissues -- spanning wide-ranging species populations.
At the earliest possible indication that such processes are underway, the only remaining viable - some might say final - solution may require detonating a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons to induce a global nuclear winter through spread of fallout -- refreezing the permafrost but inducing a catastrophic population bottleneck.
So, basically, the human race ends up freezing and irradiating itself to avoid boiling and gassing itself.
2
Classic NYT "Climate Change" propaganda lead: "They have the largest carbon footprints."
Huge difference between them and more important the US has reduced its per capita "carbon footprint", while, for example, countries like France, Mexico, and India have increased theirs. And Germany with 30% renewables has seen little decline in carbon emissions, even with "over 50% of installed capacity".
Getting the number down is important, so it seems to many, but the notion that with the ever improving lifestyles in China, the EU, and the US the per capita carbon footprint will ever match the poverty of, say, Central America is absurd--i.e., the world-wide comparison per capita is meaningless, especially given each country's developed economy.
That's okay, though, misleading and half-truth propaganda is required to move the NYT Cultural Marxist agenda forward. Nothing new here. Then there is the issue--who cares?
3
@Alice's Restaurant, here's the thing. There is no other human activity where your logic applies. If other city's murder rate is high, there's no need for San Diego to try to fight crime. It's just useless.
Oh, and because millions of people eat Doritos, you can't cut down on junk food, cuz the rest of the world will be fat.
Alice, it's ALWAYS the right time to do the right thing, as a wise man once said.
So exactly what does American Exceptionalism mean to you, Alice?
7
@deb
Pointless non sequiturs won't help with those who don't much care and shaming propaganda won't help either. But a bag of "Doritos" would be nice right now--carbon footprint required aside, of course.
@Alice's Restaurant
You end with :"Then there is the issue--who cares?"
Actually, I do. But, it seems you don't, and thus you join Trump and his climate denier minions. America is supposed to be a world leader. Leading by example is a noble trait. Not addressing the problem is the coward's stance. Trump, in his quest to remove America from globalism, has become so small and closed minded that the planet itself has become unimportant to his America.
4
If you can push the smokescreen of rabidly partisan politics aside: simply consider the amount of humans now on the earth vs the amount of forests. We mammals developed so well and so successfully because we breathed in a waste product: OXYGEN. Forests breathe in our waste product: CO2.
Any bright ideas from the industrialists and deniers as to what they intend humans to breathe? Oil? $$$?
3
The most distressing part of the recent climate report was the warning that thermal overshoot, or "momentum" as a recent NY Times article described it, would sharply push warming levels far above predictions, causing massive species loss in "heat death."
Unless you *personally* are reducing your contribution of carbon pollution -- conserving, insulating, carpooling, recycling, buying less, eating local, buying used, driving EV, installing solar -- then you're just another cllimate criminal, and your opinions on climate change are irrelevant, because your behavior does all the talking.
The idea that we need "leadership" here is laughable, not because leadership wouldn't serve, but because you're looking to payback politicians to provide it.
Do your own part, individually, and your example will lead the way.
3
@drollere - much of the required change is only the kind of thing that can be moved with regulations, requiring leadership. People have to do their part, but one aspect is to require their elected officials to do so as well.
And I'm not talking about "draconian, freedom destroying blah blah blah" that we hear from the type who think Bret Stephens is a real thinker about climate change. I'm talking incentives, and a price on carbon emissions. There are plenty of examples where that price is collected but the money is put back in the hands of consumers. Most economists think a carbon tax is the least intrusive, most effective way to accelerate what's already happening with shifts in our entire energy infrastructure, and acceleration is what we need.
3
I think the author is reaching for a story here. Under
the current American administration there will not be
any constructive efforts to slow the growth of warming
emissions. Whatever can be done will only be possible outside
DC. Whatever China decides to do, it will not take
into account its current bilateral relationship with trump
in its decision.
It is futile, and a useless exercise in wishful thinking, to imagine
anything else. The most idiotic of denialist strains of "thought"
(delusion is more accurate here)
completely dominate trump's inner circle as well as at EPA,
Interior, and Energy.
This might have been different if the corporate media
who can't get enough of the tweeter in chief's daily idiocies
were to have challenged his ignorant nonsense to his face
at every opportunity presented rather than letting him off
scot free.
This did not happen early on and it is useless to do it now. It would be fun to watch but it wouldn't change anything.
If China, India, Brazil, in particular, decide upon the
same cretinous and suicidal behavior as trump, that would not
be good of course, But they will choose courses of action
completely independently of this country since we are
out of the picture. Whether we could have
helped influence their choices were we to have
adopted a sane policy is another matter for speculation.
But in the current context, they've been given the signal from trump, though not necessarily the rest of the world, to
do whatever they want.
4
@bl - I think the story IS that progress a few years ago, where Obama had finally gotten India and China to even participate, is now at risk because of the reverse-leadership now emanating from DC.
Here we're still making headway, coal retirements were record high the first year of Trump's Misadministration, and projections are that coal consumption decline and coal plant retirements kept up a brisk pace in 2018 and consumption's expected to drop even faster next year.
And the red states in the Plains keep on letting investors install more and more wind turbines - at some point I'm thinking that there will be breathing room in the Republican Party to realize that reflexively defending the old energy system is stupid when they're putting money in the bank with renewables.
1
The people of the world aren't going to put up with decreasing prosperity gracefully. They're going to protest, then riot and revolt if their standards continue to fall. This is apparent from Paris, Germany, Brazil, Russia, US, and everywhere else.
A rising standard of living requires more energy, not less. And there's our dilemma. How do you live better with a lot less energy and share that prosperity with increasing populations? Until we figure that out, it is a true rock and hard place situation.
We need political leadership, and we're not getting it. We are well on the way toward developing the technology, but many high-end rice bowls will have to be disrupted, and many expensive feathers ruffled to implement it in any timely and meaningful way.
13
@mlbex
First, you are correct about resistance from the rich and powerful, who delude themselves that they can insulate themselves from climate chaos.
Second, it is not necessarily true that a rising standard of living requires more energy.
For example, the European Union emits half the carbon per capita of the U.S.with similar standard of living. Less pollution makes life better, not worse. If we discouraged planned obsolescence, we could enjoy higher quality products with less time and energy wasted replacing things that break as soon as the warranty runs out.
Third, solar is already prove competitive with natural gas, and the price is dropping quickly, while the the cost of extracting fossil fuels is rising as techniques become more extreme.
Countries whith politicians who have not been corruptef by the oil corporations are moving into a clean energy future as fast as possible because once installed renewable energy is nearly free, and other benefits like reduced lung and heart disease also raise the quality of life, not to mention avoiding extreme weather, high sea levels (with most of the world's population living near the coasts), reduced agricultural output from extreme weather, and the death of plants and animals that can't migrate with changing weather patterns.
4
You are correct. Look at France. The rich in this case are fine with a new higher fuel tax. It’s the regular folks that are going to be hit the hardest and they don’t like it. One solution is to make the rich pay for it. They can drive all they want on their income. The regular people need some transportation for work etc. And the rich should pay the new tax for them. As there are far few rich the environment will benefit even if they drive more.
2
"The fight against climate change"???? What fight? All I see happening is people rearranging the deck chairs.
25
There’s this one article I read a whole back stating 100 companies are responsible for about 75% of global carbon emissions. Yet the little guy is always being asked to do more. The little guy can do more but the big effort has to be pushing larger companies to do their part.
4
@Ying Wang
Global corporations have far too much influence over government policy.
Corporations are fictitious persons, not citizens and they should not be afforded the rights of citizens even as citizens are being reduced to subjects.
Unlimited legalized bribery, through dark money donations, high paying jobs for "retired" government officials, and stock ownership by public servants is stealing the sovereign power of actual citizens and transferring it to pseudo citizens whose shareholders are also public servants.
The revolving door has been left as a sad monument to the wall that used to exist between those that make government policy and those that profit from it.
Take your government back from global corporations that are destroying our country and the world.
The People used to say "Our government." Now The Government says "our people." Our revolution is being reversed.
3
Why does everything have to do with climate change? Frankly, I am tired of hearing about it as I am sure other Americans are too! Move on to another topic!
3
@Southern Boy I am sorry that you're tired of hearing about an issue that could dramatically reshape (and shrink) the global economy, lead to thousands upon thousands of deaths and millions upon millions more economic migrants trying to reach North America and Europe, and basically make the world less habitable for, uh, humanity.
The thing is, though, it's kind of an important problem, and it doesn't really care whether you want to pay attention to it or not, so we're going to keep trying to make it a bigger issue than it is.
Because if you're not around to deal with the consequences of it, your kids will be. Maybe you don't care about them, but those of us with a conscience would rather leave them a habitable planet.
17
Zach, effects won't start becoming significant for another hundred years or more. It's a bit arrogant for us to think we can solve the 22nd century's problem today when we haven't even sorted out the 20th century's problems.
2
@Southern Boy. Maybe because it is the biggest existential issue facing humankind.
7
The friction caused by this ignorant, headstrong president is threatening to undercut just about every conceivable opportunity to collaborate on just about every conceivable issue.
When America is no longer trusted...no longer respected...no longer included...all will be lost.
The sad thing is, it never had to be this way. You don't have to pick diplomatic fights, and you certainly don't have to pick them in the manner of a schoolyard bully.
4
Then three reasons why the left side of the table all wore blue ties:
1. Cooling the planet
2. Cooling relationship
3. Democratic (party) horizons
Recently I read an article in the Times which proposed a different way of discussing the risks of climate change and found that to be important thinking for trying to sway the stubbornness of climate deniers. Emphasize probabilistic thinking. Respectfully encourage people to play the odds to achieve an vastly preferable outcome. The article said it better than me.
There are so many really damaging ways of looking at the problem so as to justify inaction. One is the notion that Chinese emissions are going up so why shouldn't everyone else's? That ignores the issue of raising living standards in developing countries as opposed to lowering standards for us. This problem wasn't created by the poor.
Then there is the argument used by some Canadians that we are a trifling jurisdiction compared to the US or China, so why should we do anything? Utter denial of personal responsibility! And blindness to very high per capita energy consumption.
Individually we have 70% of the same DNA as slugs. When we work well collectively we can greatly exceed that, but in a time where social media tweaks our information to inflame us to increase our screen time and hence their revenue, where the most powerful country on the planet is led by a congenital liar who exemplifies utter self-centeredness, when many religions still aggressively promote new births well beyond the carrying capacity of the planet, the obstacles are great for us to hope to address our greatest ever problem.
5
@Charles last month there were a couple of survey questions put to a large panel of economists. The first question was along the lines of your opening sentences:
"Question A: Considering a broad range of costs and benefits is a better tool for guiding climate policy than setting temperature limits (such as 1.5 °C , eg) based on expected links between temperature increases and the extent of environmental harm."
They were in favor of changing the discussion of a goal away from a global temperature target.
The second question was about carbon tax vs. cap and trade. They strongly favor a carbon tax.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/climate-change-policies
1
Actually, it all really comes down to leadership. Period!
The FREE WORLD in the past has looked to the US for not only leadership, but direction. Right now, the US is being tossed in the Ocean but really not moving in any direction towards land. It’s so-called “Captain” never actually commanded any vessel. It was all “make-believe” for TV. It’s now time for “The Crew” to Mutiny. So who is the crew? It’s every citizen, senator, house member and leader to take control before we perish. Yes, Perish, if we don’t have the guts and intelligence to realize what Trump is doing to this planet. It’s going to take a lot more than just A VOTE to change things. It’s going to take personal involvement. My question is: Are the Citizens of the US willing to sacrifice that time and energy?
8
Since the catholics ,evangelicals ,culture of corruption GOP and supporters are in denial of the seriousness of coal and fossil fuel damage I see every American city living in thick fog like China and India are now. Don't forget the masks they have to wear in those countries now. I am glad I am 65 now I would not want to be starting off in my 20's to look forward to that scenario in America. Very sad the GOP don't believe in scientists or their climate change warning and to my amazement keep getting elected to destroy our climate more each year.
3
It's important to distinguish between air pollution, like the smog and particulates of China and India, and carbon emissions, which are invisible and don't directly affect our health. We basically got rid of air pollution in the US over the last 50 years, so we won't be needing the masks here.
2
You are delusional if you think this trade dispute affects the pace of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris agreement was diplomatic salve, not action. If anything, a trade dispute will slow economic growth and marginally reduce emissions. Do you really think a political climate that gives us Donald Trump, riots in Paris, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Putin in Russia, etc. is going to produce a 50% cut in emissions in 20 years.
3
I grew up in the Pittsburg, PA area during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Far more pollution went into the atmosphere (from eight-cylinder cars, coal fired electrical generation, home heating with coal/diesel, steel, and other manufacturing) then/than today.
The winters were very cold. Cold enough for Ice Hockey on ponds and lakes that froze over for weeks.
6
@Sam Freeman Hey Sam! Yes. so true. I remember those days as well. I am always surprised at how so many from our generation have forgotten this well observed weather/climate FACT. Back in those days...we were constantly reminded about the threat of Nuclear Winter....(also blamed on the United States....we have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons....never mind that lots of other nations do too). Robert Frost .....
"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice."
Stopping climate change is like King Canute marching to the sea and commanding the tides to stop.
4
Are you seriously drawing a comparison from 1950ies smoke stack emissions in Pittsburgh to global carbon dioxide levels in 2018???
The ignorance of some people is simply staggering, even among NYT readers. It goes to show how American education has been failing for decades. I also explains why that "Individual 1" was made president of this country.
6
Summer in Beijing next year and please let us know if you still think so.
2
America along with other western nations have created the climate crisis we are dealing with today. The rest of the world has joined us in consuming natural resources at an ever increasing and frantic pace. The control of the world is not within the grasp of the US anymore and our prominence is fading away in the rear view mirror. China and the US being the 2 largest economies will have the most to lose although everyone loses at this game. This is a case where being stubborn and turning inward is sealing the fate of the future. Thoughts and prayers seem to be the only answer that the once great American nation can offer the world. We are living in the cusp of a new epoch.
3
We *have * dramatically shifted away from coal and toward natural gas, along with inventing cheap new ways of obtaining that gas. That's an important leading role in my book.
3
“The rest of the world looks to the U.S. and China for leadership”.
We want America to be number one--to have the best businesses, hospitals, universities, and scientists. What does that mean for climate change policy? Do we want the rest of the world to look to China for leadership, or to the U.S.?
We have an opportunity to lead by adopting legislation newly-introduced in the House of Representatives. H.R. 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018, is bipartisan, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.
This bill will:
--Place a gradually increasing fee on carbon fuels to be paid by the producer
--Pay out the proceeds to American households in the form of a dividend, to protect them from energy price increases
--Impose a border adjustment to protect U.S businesses
--Target emissions reductions of 90% below 2015 levels by 2050
--Achieve more than would the Paris Accord and the Clean Power Plan
--Harness the power of the free market
This is our chance to show leadership on this existential threat. Local initiatives are great, but the single most important thing any of us can can do for the environment is to actively support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.
Contact your congressional representatives and urge them to sponsor and support this bill. Join a supportive organization, such as Citizens Climate Lobby.
Where the people lead, the leaders will follow. Where the U.S. leads, the world will follow.
12
Whether Trump likes to admit it or not, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall because we now have cheaper fuel alternatives to coal-fired power plants. If Trump was smart he would stop making empty promises about reopening coal mines and use this is a bragging point to set an example to the rest of the world. Of course Trump is not smart. He has pulled out of the Paris climate accord, dismisses warnings of his own scientists, will not attend the meeting in Poland and has, in effect, allowed China to position itself as a global climate leader. See https://grist.org/climate-energy/7-signs-that-china-is-serious-about-combatting-climate-change/
5
Lots of talk , no action. Anyway it's too late.
7
If the fossil-fuel-funded science-deniers currently ascendant in America's dysfunctional political system are going to stick their heads in the sand and shamelessly continue dumping carbon pollution into the air, China should seize this opportunity to take the moral high ground from America on this issue. The world will not forget who stood up to lead at this dire turning point for humanity.
11
What plans for dealing with climate change? We have no meaningful plans.
16
The friction over climate change rests in two nations at different stages of socioeconomic development. America and China also have substantially different ethnic sectarian histories.
China has 20% of humans. And despite having the nominal #2 economy on a per capita basis China ranks # 80 near Bulgaria and the Dominican Republic. China is a rising socioeconomic power with 910% growth in its economy between 2000-2016. America experienced 44% growth during the same period.
China moved 300 million of it's people into the middle class. This has had enormous costs and benefits. China is an aging shrinking nation with a massive male gender imbalance.
The 1.3 billion Chinese occupy the same amount of land as 320 million Americans. The environmental costs are staggering.
Until recently China had a term limited collective leadership governing political model. China abandoned communism in favor of state driven capitalism. China has very few allies and alliances.
China reasonably resents being judged by and held to the same environmental standards as America. The most populous parliamentary democracy aka India has similar concerns. Unlike Donald Trump, Xi Jinping believes in and knows the science of climate change.
15
The scientist who likened the acceleration of global warming to that of a speeding freight train is either confused or intending to comfort us. Freight trains at any speed accelerate very, very slowly. His use of an image that is telling, though, revealing that he/she is more interested in inciting emotion than in communicating facts. And, by the way, why would anyone think that China, which in so many respects operates as a large criminal enterprise, would ever sacrifice its economic development to prevent climate change?
7
@ehillesum
Freight trains accelerate slowly but also decelerate slowly. Maybe it is the difficulty of stopping a speeding freight train that they were trying to convey.
The fact is that we keep dumping more carbon into the atmosphere, changing the chemistry that drives climate. We have increased carbon in the atmosphere and oceans by over a third since the industrial revolution began about 250 years ago. That is nearly instantaneous relative to the history of climate.
The burden of proof should be on those that claim that changing the chemistry of the atmosphere will not change or climate. They insist on running a poorly designed experiment, with a sample of one (the only planet we have) with no control group, even though nearly everyone that actually stories climate says it will be a disaster.
After decades off Republicans screaming that climate change is a hoax and that investing in clean energy (which will be nearly free once installed and creates not jobs than fossil fuels already) will destroy the economy, it is about time that emotional language is used by those that want to afford disrupting the climate that our food supplies and habitat depend on.
The burden of proof has been placed on climate scientists instead of polluters by global corporate mass media, whose controlling shares are owned by the same global shareholders and conglomerates that own the oil companies.
6
@ehillesum Speeding freight train metaphor is not about speed. It's about the impact. Force = mass * acceleration. Freight train implies massive mass.
2
@ehillesum - the freight train reference was about CO2 emissions.
China's not sacrificing its economic development. It's basically got a lock on manufacturing for current silicon photovoltaics. They're looking to develop their own electric vehicle (EV) industry and are building lots of battery-manufacture facilities, too. They're not leading global exporters of wind yet, but they installed more last year than any other nation. We're in second place.
"On Wednesday, China’s largest electric vehicle maker BYD started operating a battery plant for EVs in northwestern Qinghai province. The company said that the plant, when it is in full operation next year, will be the world’s biggest in terms of production capacity. It will have a production capacity of 24 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is enough to power 570,000 EV360, the company’s pure EV models for 360 kilometers (224 miles), according to a company spokesperson.
The plant is the latest indication of China’s booming EV market, which is already the world’s largest. The country sold 328,000 new energy vehicles, a term that includes hybrids and pure EVs, as of May, 1.5 times the sales figures of the same period a year earlier."
https://qz.com/1317745/here-are-all-the-gigafactories-that-chinese-electric-vehicle-battery-giants-are-building/
3
The biggest threat to the planet are not just our economies but 1.3 billion Chinese trying to live like Americans and 330 million Americans actually living like Americans. The planet cannot support anywhere near the 7.8 billion of us living anything like th current western lifestyle. The only even potentially sustainable way forward are much smaller populations and economies that don't depend on a throw away consumer society. Something no one is even talking about. Nat Geo looked at the Paris accords and basically said it won't help at all. Nibbling around the edges and not looking at the real issue, the primary of which is human numbers, may give a warm fuzzy, but it won't amount to anything longterm.
35
@Al
Yes we need to redesign our economic systems to concentrate on creating quality products that last forever instead of cheap junk that needs to be constantly replaced.
One problem is planned obsolescence. If a company designs a product that lasts forever, it would greatly reduce potential sales. But the more often we have to replace a product, the more pollution we create, both in the manufacturing and disposal of the product.
Using the GDP as a measure of an economy's health is a form of self deception that creates many bad decisions leading to more pollution around worse living conditions for most people. Quality goods not only last longer but work better and look better. And less time has to be wasted on shipping for the same products again and again.
By concentrating on moving money around instead of the actual reasons why we create and buy things, we are putting far too many hours and resources into pursuits that don't increase our quality of life and did create extra pollution.
Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy, and other systems all have advantages and disadvantages. The smart thing to do is not fight over which is better and try to implement extreme versions of them (for example our extreme capitalism is making billionaires richer but most people poorer).
The smart thing to do is to take the best features of the competing systems, combine them, and create a new system that works better than all of them.
9
@Al "Nat Geo looked at the Paris accords and basically said it won't help at all."
It would be a start - better than doing nothing - or making things worse. At least the Paris accords began the process of putting in place a multi-lateral framework that could later be strengthened.
Also you should consider who owns national geographic, and what their agenda might be.
3
So Nat geo is now part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” as well? I don’t think so. Sir David Attenborough and EO Wilson are on board that a lot more needs to be done (and it always includes lowering populations) and not just symbolic signings of lukewarm documents at press events. Trump is not helping, but tell me with a straight face, co2 would be going down if HRC or BHO was the prez.
5
From The Economist.
"The amount of greenhouse gases emitted in America dropped by 2.7% in the first year of the Trump presidency. This was the biggest reduction anywhere in the rich world.
The decline has little to do with the president policies. Since 2010 nearly 40% of the country’s coal-generating capacity has either been shut down or designated for closure. This is mostly because rival fuels were cheaper. America’s relative success at decarbonisation is mainly a result of market forces."
23