@Cooper
Poor people \*do\* have a smaller carbon footprint - but there's 100x more of them (China + India) as there are of us, and we are paying to pull their people out of poverty at a faster rate than at any time in history. So those 'poor people' are soon going to be no longer poor, but contributing just as much per capita (perhaps more) as we are.
And they want the same lifestyles we have - and why shouldn't they? Te approved method seems to be that we should destroy our lifestyle/economy to build theirs? We have imposed increasingly onerous burdens on businesses until they give it the Bill Murray, throw their hands in the say and say "Fuck it, I'm out." Only for that same product to return to the market, made in some country that cares more about the quality of life of it's citizens than virtue signalling against big corporations. Quebec has a moratorium against Alberta oil, but imports millions of gallons from a country half way around the world with an appalling human rights record.
To now offload responsibility back onto us, and pretend that we should reduce our carbon footprint to their level because they have a lower per capita number (for now) is sophistry. Destroy our economies so they can prosper, don't have kids so that they can have kids, ride a bike to work so they can have factories. The message only sticks because it suits the millenarian doom and gloomer inside the guilt ridden and shamed Western world. We love to worry about the end of the world because we don't have enough real things to worry about any more. Plus you can make good money to push the message. Little different in that regard to Y2K.
@Cam - if in 2012 China's CO2 output was only 16% directed to goods shipped overseas, do they have a responsibility to clean up the other 84%? If we have reduced our CO2 output by 10% , and they have doubled theirs in the last 10 years, who is needing to step up their game? It's not finger wagging, but expecting a level playing field. You seem to be suggesting that because we bankrolled their economy, we're responsible for offsetting it? Again - how long should we wait for them to get it under control if we only have 12 years?
We can't have it both ways - either you care for the environment and the worlds biggest polluters need to accept the same curtailments we have pushed on us (and that's going to suck big time for the people who live there). And by extension, stop preaching to the choir TOYER. Or accept that by not addressing the big dogs in the room, it's nothing but theatre and the equivalent to environmental 'thoughts and prayers'. Except thoughts and prayers don't cost us money out of every paycheck.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint) < Again 2012, but where is it now?
Sorry - slow day...
Dec. 11, 2019, 12:55 p.m. - Nouseforaname
@Cooper Poor people \*do\* have a smaller carbon footprint - but there's 100x more of them (China + India) as there are of us, and we are paying to pull their people out of poverty at a faster rate than at any time in history. So those 'poor people' are soon going to be no longer poor, but contributing just as much per capita (perhaps more) as we are. And they want the same lifestyles we have - and why shouldn't they? Te approved method seems to be that we should destroy our lifestyle/economy to build theirs? We have imposed increasingly onerous burdens on businesses until they give it the Bill Murray, throw their hands in the say and say "Fuck it, I'm out." Only for that same product to return to the market, made in some country that cares more about the quality of life of it's citizens than virtue signalling against big corporations. Quebec has a moratorium against Alberta oil, but imports millions of gallons from a country half way around the world with an appalling human rights record. To now offload responsibility back onto us, and pretend that we should reduce our carbon footprint to their level because they have a lower per capita number (for now) is sophistry. Destroy our economies so they can prosper, don't have kids so that they can have kids, ride a bike to work so they can have factories. The message only sticks because it suits the millenarian doom and gloomer inside the guilt ridden and shamed Western world. We love to worry about the end of the world because we don't have enough real things to worry about any more. Plus you can make good money to push the message. Little different in that regard to Y2K. @Cam - if in 2012 China's CO2 output was only 16% directed to goods shipped overseas, do they have a responsibility to clean up the other 84%? If we have reduced our CO2 output by 10% , and they have doubled theirs in the last 10 years, who is needing to step up their game? It's not finger wagging, but expecting a level playing field. You seem to be suggesting that because we bankrolled their economy, we're responsible for offsetting it? Again - how long should we wait for them to get it under control if we only have 12 years? We can't have it both ways - either you care for the environment and the worlds biggest polluters need to accept the same curtailments we have pushed on us (and that's going to suck big time for the people who live there). And by extension, stop preaching to the choir TOYER. Or accept that by not addressing the big dogs in the room, it's nothing but theatre and the equivalent to environmental 'thoughts and prayers'. Except thoughts and prayers don't cost us money out of every paycheck. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint) < Again 2012, but where is it now? Sorry - slow day...