Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
They still have a long way to go before they equal the US.
Here's a graph of Vietnam's GHG emissions per person compared to the global average:-
Government of Vietnam Climate Priorities
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
Here's a graph of Vietnam's GHG emissions per person compared to the global average:-
Government of Vietnam Climate Priorities
Yes they do but that wasn't the point. I thought that was obvious. Vietnam's per capita emissions have doubled since 2000 with a slight dip at 2020 to 2022 due to the economy shutting down during the pandemic.
So where are we in 2024? Climate change is as intense as it's ever been which proves that not only do these "blah blah blah" government conferences and proclamations mean nothing but sitting back and bitching about climate change while pigging back the fossil fuels hasn't brought about the needed change.
So, somehow, "we" are supposed to combat climate change by somehow switching absolutely everything over to wind and solar without inconveniencing anyone (save non celebrity 1%) or costing John Q. Public any significant financial hardships.
OK, sure, I'll bite. How do we do that?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
In 2024 we are just starting to get serious about it. It's important that we keep the pressure on and (hopefully) accelerate it, not throw in the towel when we are starting to make progress!
But there are a lot of people who would love to see that to happen. They are the ones saying "government conferences and proclamations mean nothing blah blah". The biggest problem we have right now is all the people who are voting to stop making progress, and your rhetoric is playing right into their hands.
Similarly to New Zealand, half of Vietnam's GHG emissions are caused by agriculture - specifically rice. They have been putting in wind, solar and hydro to avoid using more fossil fuels as electricity demand increases. This was going well except some of their hydro projects were not well designed and caused flooding (that's what happens when you 'fast-track' stuff without doing proper environmental assessments). Despite the hydro problems they have exceeded their targets so far.
The truth is, "we" don't need to do much. GHG gas emissions from western countries are already declining. If we just keep on the path we are following now it will be enough. That means John Q. Public will eventually be close to carbon neutral without any significant financial hardships. However many people are against change even if it will benefit them, just because they are Luddites. Not only are they afraid of financial hardships, but even the slightest inconveniences or changes to their behavior.
The same people who drive for miles looking for the cheapest gas price refuse to even consider the idea of their next vehicle being an EV, even though it could save them a bundle, be nicer to drive and less of a hassle. Unfortunately that means that EVs will have to become cheaper than gas cars and have stupidly long range and charging rates before many adopt them. But right now we don't need all those people on board. So long as governments don't put the kibosh through EV adoption, the market will change enough to get most people on board in a few years.
Same goes for other stuff too. Renewables are getting cheaper than fossil fuels. Coal plants are closing because they aren't economic. As more storage comes on line we will need fewer gas peakers too - so long as we just keep doing what we are doing now. The naysayers will tell you different, but that's because they are Luddites who don't want to see any change even when it will benefit them.
Most importantly though, we need to support the efforts of emerging countries like Vietnam and India, as well as China. If the western world throws in the towel then we have no business telling them what to do. That's why even though any individual country by itself might only be having minimal effect, we all need to show that we are doing our bit. Furthermore doing so will help to advance the technology and processes needed. My boss has spent a lot of time in Vietnam helping them make their agriculture more sustainable and cut down on emissions. The knowledge he is gaining from that will also help us to reduce our farming emissions too!
Please tell me you haven't forgotten where the "blah blah blah" and criticism of government conferences like COP originally came from. I know it was a while ago, but it hasn't been that long.
EVs are only a teeny tiny part of the solution to the pathway of staving off 1.5C and are really just a Band-Aid on a brain tumor scale of climate solution. Active transportation is what you want to be promoting.
GHG emissions in western countries may be declining but it's nowhere near fast enough. It's the reality we're going to live with and no amount of complaining about fossil fuel corporations, trying to shift the blame to the supplier rather than the user is going to bring about any meaningful change. Sure, it'll get you some updoots, but those glaciers are going to continue to melt despite countless news articles about climate change.
EVs are only a teeny tiny part of the solution to the pathway of staving off 1.5C and are really just a Band-Aid on a brain tumor scale of climate solution. Active transportation is what you want to be promoting.
GHG emissions in western countries may be declining but it's nowhere near fast enough. It's the reality we're going to live with and no amount of complaining about fossil fuel corporations, trying to shift the blame to the supplier rather than the user is going to bring about any meaningful change. Sure, it'll get you some updoots, but those glaciers are going to continue to melt despite countless news articles about climate change.
Because the enforced customers are too poor to compare against the money that Exxon can pour into denialist propaganda. They need to be able to get to travel to work, do the work, travel back, cook their meals, do whatever their do in their leisure time, and Exxon will take their cut at every level.
IMO, welcome to Corporate Capitalism. Capitalism has it's place, it encourages competition, even fairly large National companies can be humanitarian in their approaches to business practices.
But when it becomes Global Corporations we are ALL ******. They have absolutely NO respect for any individual, which is why people like Greta Thunberg are so disruptive to them. A relatively nobody that challenges Global Corporations in a way that is unheard of recently' The last example that I can think of that influenced public opinion in a comparable manner was Tank Man in Tiananmen Square:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
At least she is in a far more tolerant environment.
I really hope that I spoil your day., I just bought her book (OK, she only wrote the foreword).
It is really good, if you really just want to learn all of the details it's great, if you want to deep-dive it provides plenty of links, and the contributors are all of the worlds best - doesn't include the DM's providers, sorry for that, but they are all wankers.
OH NO! somebody else bought her book, I feel sick, I've got to go lie down. Well now that you're up to speed with everything else everybody learned about climate change for free maybe you can use your newfound wisdom and come up with a realistic pathway to averting 1.5C.
This sitting around complaining about climate change while playing victim and pigging out on fossil fuels isn't, obviously, getting the job done. Bonus points for following the Thunberg climate justice model where only the developed nations somehow cut their emissions enough to allow developing nations to continue emitting.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Yes they will.. What alternatives do the average consumer have? Try to offer some realistic examples.
Take a stroll through the Greta threads, particularly toward the end in part III, where the effectiveness Greta Thunberg in bringing about a reduction in global warming or it's causes is discussed.
She hasn't disrupted anything where the Global Corporations and their customers, who are driving C02 emissions are concerned.. I
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Travel to work: Car sharing. Cycling. Public transport.
Do the work: Don't work for fossil fuel companies. Encourage your employer to go green. If you're a shareholder, put pressure on that way. Reduce waste, encourage recycling, reduce energy consumption.
Cook meals: Reduce meat consumption, especially beef. Cook with electric, not gas. Reduce food waste.
Leisure time: Go for a walk. Cycle. Play sports. i.e. do something that doesn't rely on power consumption.
Then there are the other options: contact your local MP/ representative. Join a pressure group. Boycott the worst environmental offenders. The aim is to put pressure on the individuals who can make macro-decisions- the government and captains of industry- to do the right thing.
All realistic examples, I think.
Or you can just retreat into cynicism and defeatism. Your choice.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Yes they have those alternatives, what do you propose we do to encourage them to take those alternatives?
I'll take cynical, you can have unrealistic..
I'll take cynical, you can have unrealistic..
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Now you're shifting the goalposts. You asked for realistic alternatives, which I supplied. Now you want to know how people can be encouraged to take those alternatives up.
If I give you some ideas, are you going to move the goalposts again, in an eternal retreat into cyncism? If so, is there any point in my continuing this discussion with you?
It's hard to tell how many people have made those choices out of respect for the environment, suffice to say, it's nowhere near enough. We can fault environmental activism for this with their decades of focusing on the bitching and moaning approach. We all know that severe lifestyle restrictions are coming with the recent inflation rate being the most obvious indicator of this.
Mt plumber just went in the other direction. Moved away from the are he works in just to buy a Pinterest friendly faux-industrial look new build condo with a view and that's going to add at least two hours to his daily drive. So...move from the area you work in, where you could have gotten a bigger better, though older, condo for the same price so you can spend an extra 10+ hours/week sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
I also read something about a "possible" weekend driving ban in Germany but I can't figure out whether it's ******** or not.
Would renewables have gotten more economical that fossil fuels without all the complaining? Who knows?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
No, you gave me unrealistic alternatives for the world's working class at large..
I don't think most of them want to quit their jobs that are driven by the fossil fuel industry.
Since you think they should do all those things, it's up to you to come up with a plan to get them to do it.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As far as I can tell, the most realistic incentive is pollution. Trading local pollution for global climate change was a huge PR stuff up.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,034
Because most nations dealt with local pollution by outsourcing the polluting industries to China, India or other countries willing to salt their earth for a quick buck. Shifting the problem is not solving it.
The economic damage we are causing down the line will drown any profits made now, but the cost will be with our (grand)children so who cares?
And given the world's current turn towards populism which feeds on the exact sentiment of 'give me everything I want now, and damn the consequences later!' I have no doubt that cost will be quite high.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
All generations have had to deal with the (perceived ) sins of their fathers.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Would you care to elaborate on this? It's a bit of a sweeping dismissal.
As that is not something I suggested, I fail to see the relevance.
No, it isn't. Making suggestions, in response to your claim, does not in any way obligate me to come up with some kind of global eco-regime.
Try it, just for fun, then compare it to what's realistically possible and probable.
Take the Swiss for example. Swiss activists just won a major human rights victory. Switzerland in (on paper) a pretty green economy, at least in the summer but when you figure all the stuff the Swiss import then their energy gluttons. How to green up Switzerland. Really green, I mean. Get those emissions down to 3 tonnes/pp so the old ladies can go outside in the summer.
Massive import duties with the proceeds put into wind and solar?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,408
Ah, sitting around and whimsically seeing what minuscule energy saving individuals can make must be gratifying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/data-centers-internet-power-source-coal/
Don't even think of starting me on Bitcoin mining.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/data-centers-internet-power-source-coal/
Don't even think of starting me on Bitcoin mining.
Ah yes, the miniscule energy savings approach, the classic denialist tactic. We're talking major energy saving here which means if you're not living in a 15 minute city situation and still drive a car, you're part of the problem.
The WaPo article is paywalled. Use archive links.
https://archive.ph/7iksp
The WaPo article is paywalled. Use archive links.
https://archive.ph/7iksp