What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do We Really Think India and China Will Stop Their Development So That The World Stops Climate Change? (1 Viewer)

rockaction

rockaction

Footballguy
No.

Next question.

I was struck by reading the Atlantic about Greta Thunberg when I read this sentence.

"Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent against climate policy in Europe, told me."

Oh, I see. They're tracking dissent against climate policy like it's a hate crime. This 21st Century is ####### Orwellian to the nth.

Count me off the ship of state.

 
rockaction said:
No.

Next question.

I was struck by reading the Atlantic about Greta Thunberg when I read this sentence.

"Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent against climate policy in Europe, told me."

Oh, I see. They're tracking dissent against climate policy like it's a hate crime. This 21st Century is ####### Orwellian to the nth.

Count me off the ship of state.
Click to expand...
Of course not.  But I heard they pinky promise.

 
Manster said:
No.

And we will continue to act like we are the problem, which will continue to make us weaker in the world community
Click to expand...
We are part of the problem...and we are part of the problem where we can do something about it.  Where we can be better than others despite what they may or may not do.

Also...who thinks it makes us weak in the world community?  In what way?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
We are part of the problem...and we are part of the problem where we can do something about it.  Where we can bet better than others despite what they may or may not do.

Also...who thinks it makes us weak in the world community?  In what way?
Click to expand...
I don't buy into the "we aren't going to do stuff if they don't" mentality, especially on this issue.  That's not how world leaders think.    Not sure why we should continue to treat the planet like our waste dump just because they might.   

 
Just think, if we had invested the trillions spent on the last 15 years of Afghanistan occupation into green energy, we probably could be close to zero emissions as a nation AND exporting our technology all over the world.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I don't buy into the "we aren't going to do stuff if they don't" mentality, especially on this issue.  That's not how world leaders think.    Not sure why we should continue to treat the planet like our waste dump just because they might.   
Click to expand...
Oh yes. China looks to us for leadership, properly and normatively understood. What a sentiment that is!

Look, we shouldn't do it because you're handcuffing your own development while your enemies continue to develop using fossil fuels. Rapidly. While they actively attack your power grids, etc. It nets out. It's the classic prisoner's dilemma. Quick, explain that dilemma for ten points.

It's nice you don't buy into that, but reality intrudes. When your power grid gets knocked out and theirs is airtight, and you're looking for someone to blame, blame ya know, yourself. And your leaders.

 
Remember The Big Lebowski. Leads? You guys got any "leads"?

The cop laughs hysterically.

Yeah. Leaders. You guys got any leaders?

 
rockaction said:
Holy ####, that was a speech right out of Davos.

We need to lead the 21st Century.
Click to expand...
So you think leading the 21st century consists of continuing to encourage the use of 19th century technology rather than, I don't know, invest in and push the boundaries on new technology?

 
Rich Conway said:
So you think leading the 21st century consists of continuing to encourage the use of 19th century technology rather than, I don't know, invest in and push the boundaries on new technology?
Click to expand...
Gas is cheap in the USA, so we're not on the leading edge of demand and production and even green technology. Without the influence of California, who would wanna buy our air polluting gas guzzling passenger cars? Most businesses in the USA don't think of export, like they do in European countries, cause we're a big English-speaking country.  It's not just the language, it's the culture. Companies from Spain have been leaders in the solar industry in Florida.

China is also big, but their companies always think export, so they'll be at the forefront of green technology. China has a large coastal population and industrial threatened by sea-level rise, and we all saw the terrible smog, so their government takes climate crisis seriously.  There is dilemma between growth and quality of life in China, but at least there is a discussion.  Without the Paris accords, wouldn't it be even worse in China?

 
rockaction said:
No.

Next question.

I was struck by reading the Atlantic about Greta Thunberg when I read this sentence.

"Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent against climate policy in Europe, told me."

Oh, I see. They're tracking dissent against climate policy like it's a hate crime. This 21st Century is ####### Orwellian to the nth.

Count me off the ship of state.
Click to expand...


Will China and India stop?

On the surface? Maybe. 

In reality?  No

Reality is their populations are so large they can`t stop.

 
sho nuff said:
We are part of the problem...and we are part of the problem where we can do something about it.  Where we can be better than others despite what they may or may not do.

Also...who thinks it makes us weak in the world community?  In what way?
Click to expand...
We need cheap energy.  We won't produce our own oil just to be dependant on OPEC.  It's a joke. 

How much to we owe China?  They will continue to do whatever it takes to get ahead....meanwhile we are more concerned with what pronoun to call each other.....

Just a couple examples off the top of my head.

 
This is weird how people are looking at how I pose the question. If China and India remain as developing polluters, any remedial efforts at climate change are a failure. Therefore, our remedial attempts fail everybody, especially our own citizens because we no longer use cheaper fossil fuels to accomplish our energy goals and needs.

This is not a "they won't, so we won't" out of spite. This is a "they won't" so we shouldn't because of development and wealth. That should be apparent. The non-creation of wealth dings our power in the world, our sovereignty. It affects everything we do in life. This isn't a playground choice. It's a calculated game theory choice. Pollution affects the world, not one little corner of it.

Also, the false dichotomy of dump/pristine environmental state was interesting to read. Who said anything like that? Use green energy where it makes things more habitable, use fossil fuels where it makes things more habitable. What's so hard about that concept?

Does this not strike anybody as obvious?

 
Rich Conway said:
Just think, if we had invested the trillions spent on the last 15 years of Afghanistan occupation into green energy, we probably could be close to zero emissions as a nation AND exporting our technology all over the world.
Click to expand...
Well we will never know, but the world is a less safe place today. 

 
rockaction said:
No.

Next question.

I was struck by reading the Atlantic about Greta Thunberg when I read this sentence.

"Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent against climate policy in Europe, told me."

Oh, I see. They're tracking dissent against climate policy like it's a hate crime. This 21st Century is ####### Orwellian to the nth.

Count me off the ship of state.
Click to expand...


To the OP?  No

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott said:
Well we will never know, but the world is a less safe place today. 
Click to expand...
It is a given that if oil was no longer needed as an energy source, the Middle East would become much less important, leading to a much safer world.  A trillion dollar investment in green energy would move us closer to that goal.

 
Both will change once the cost to them of climate change is greater than their economic bump.  

With India, I think there is an added bonus of if/when green energy becomes economically viable enough to be used as a social/humanitarian tool to make life easier for Indians...they'd punt a bit on economic growth to help Indians.

China.....I don't think they care much about their peasantry; so they're probably more of a simple bottom dollar line.

Americans should see green energy (particularly personal dwelling/business structures) as more of a strategy than anything else....a decentralization of energy production to the individual home/business level would be a valuable tool towards keeping our "way of life" if things ever went crappy.  

 
Thunderlips said:
Both will change once the cost to them of climate change is greater than their economic bump.  

With India, I think there is an added bonus of if/when green energy becomes economically viable enough to be used as a social/humanitarian tool to make life easier for Indians...they'd punt a bit on economic growth to help Indians.

China.....I don't think they care much about their peasantry; so they're probably more of a simple bottom dollar line.

Americans should see green energy (particularly personal dwelling/business structures) as more of a strategy than anything else....a decentralization of energy production to the individual home/business level would be a valuable tool towards keeping our "way of life" if things ever went crappy.  
Click to expand...


ETA:  Plus Rich Conways point above is important.  If we can break the wheel of prosperity in the ME (fossil fuels)....we're not funding a region that (more or less) views us as hostile at best and an affront to everything holy at worst.  

 
Thunderlips said:
Both will change once the cost to them of climate change is greater than their economic bump.  

With India, I think there is an added bonus of if/when green energy becomes economically viable enough to be used as a social/humanitarian tool to make life easier for Indians...they'd punt a bit on economic growth to help Indians.

China.....I don't think they care much about their peasantry; so they're probably more of a simple bottom dollar line.

Americans should see green energy (particularly personal dwelling/business structures) as more of a strategy than anything else....a decentralization of energy production to the individual home/business level would be a valuable tool towards keeping our "way of life" if things ever went crappy.  
Click to expand...
There is a lot of wisdom in this post. If we could move away from the corporate, publicly subsidized, privately profitable energy supply we know have, that would be excellent. A decentralization of energy cost is something I could totally get behind, both in practice and in theory. It would be a valuable tool if things ever went south.

Solar for the masses!

Publicly subsidized
Privately profitable
The anthem of the pupeteer
Profiteer, untouchable
Focus a moment
Nod in approval
Bury your heads in the barkwoods of the neocolonial...

-Propagandhi

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll stand by maybe. As always we are the key. We need to lead the world by example. But more importantly, we need to develop new technologies that will make what India and China are doing out of date. 
 

The arguments against action to combat climate change have shifted from “it doesn’t exist” to “why bother? We can’t change anything.”  I don’t find this response any more compelling than the last one. 

 
Anyhow I have a solution to fighting climate change: invest in nuclear energy. This will get most conservatives on board. Liberals will be reluctant but they need to reconsider, since nuclear energy checks all the boxes: it’s not carbon based. Unlike solar, water and wind, it’s economically viable. If we could ever solve fusion it will be the answer to everything. One drawback for @rockaction- it can’t be decentralized, sorry. And it’s going to take a huge initial investment. And we have to figure out the waste issue. But I believe this is way to go. 

 
Whether China or India do or not, and whether (the royal) you thinks climate change is really a problem or not, there are large parts of the world that will and do and you aren’t going to change their mind. This is our total addressable market. We should invest in these technologies and export our green products to them otherwise we’re just being bad at capitalism.

 
Rich Conway said:
It is a given that if oil was no longer needed as an energy source, the Middle East would become much less important, leading to a much safer world.  A trillion dollar investment in green energy would move us closer to that goal.
Click to expand...
The Taliban would like to talk to meet you.

 
Manster said:
We need cheap energy.  We won't produce our own oil just to be dependant on OPEC.  It's a joke. 

How much to we owe China?  They will continue to do whatever it takes to get ahead....meanwhile we are more concerned with what pronoun to call each other.....

Just a couple examples off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


But we still do produce our own.  Our dependency on OPEC is pretty low...ticked up in the late 90s to peak and start coming back down between 2005 and 2008.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

which also coincides with our own production rising in those years.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=a

China...we owe alot and they will hold that over us.  IMO, that still was the point of the Trans Pacific Partnership.  To reduce some dependency on China and put economic pressure on them in a different way.  Once we pulled out and pulled a bit of a trade war...we are back to square one at best.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The OP has literally been my point for 40 years, since Ronnie Raygun tore President Peanut's solar cells off the White House roof. Of course, we were predicting that we would be de-forested when China/India started using toilet paper, too, but it has pretty much always been my stance that if America was going to lead the world to democratic capitalism, we were going to have to lead in environmentalism as well. whaddya know, we dont even have energy independence yet. but a notebook keeper would note that i have never made a post in a global warming/climate change (esp when Green New Deal popped up) FFA thread without prefacing it by calling the horse already out da barn. a space-race-type effort a generation ago mighta done it, and we should never stop trying to be better caretakers, but Ma Nature's winning this'n, folks.

 
timschochet said:
Anyhow I have a solution to fighting climate change: invest in nuclear energy. This will get most conservatives on board. Liberals will be reluctant but they need to reconsider, since nuclear energy checks all the boxes: it’s not carbon based. Unlike solar, water and wind, it’s economically viable. If we could ever solve fusion it will be the answer to everything. One drawback for @rockaction- it can’t be decentralized, sorry. And it’s going to take a huge initial investment. And we have to figure out the waste issue. But I believe this is way to go. 
Click to expand...
I agree with this. However liberals have a very difficult time reconsidering as you suggest they do.  That ain't happening any time soon 

 
the key to climate change and getting world wide acceptance is a carbon tax on imported goods...a really heavy one.

Climate change is an external cost and products should include all external costs

 
Global pollution from the United States 15%

We could get to 100% pollution free and the other countries on the earth would destroy it

 
I would never assume the Chinese can't do anything.

If (when) their government decides it's time to stop emitting CO2, their emissions will plummet.  Like, firing squads for CEO's who don't comply.

 
you know how to get China on board?  Embarrass them.  Make CO2 emission reduction a point of national pride - "look how great we are, too bad the low-tech Chinese can't do the same."  Of course, that's hard to do if we can't be low-emission ourselves.

 
moleculo said:
you know how to get China on board?  Embarrass them.  Make CO2 emission reduction a point of national pride - "look how great we are, too bad the low-tech Chinese can't do the same."  Of course, that's hard to do if we can't be low-emission ourselves.
Click to expand...


has that ever worked ?

shaming a communist regime ?

 
Rich Conway said:
It is a given that if oil was no longer needed as an energy source, the Middle East would become much less important, leading to a much safer world.  A trillion dollar investment in green energy would move us closer to that goal.
Click to expand...
Or if we were energy independent.    Like we were before Biden.

 
SoBeDad said:
 Without the Paris accords, wouldn't it be even worse in China?
Click to expand...
No

China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else.

A total of 247 gigawatts of coal power is now in planning or development, nearly six times Germany’s entire coal-fired capacity. China has also proposed additional new coal plants that, if built, would generate 73.5 gigawatts of power, more than five times the 13.9 gigawatts proposed in the rest of the world combined. Last year, Chinese provinces granted construction approval to 47 gigawatts of coal power projects, more than three times the capacity permitted in 2019.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree

 
moleculo said:
sort of...can we count the space race?  I mean, they beat us into orbit, we beat them to the moon.
Click to expand...


I can see that as an example except technology and space race I think is viewed as accomplishments - driving an electric car or coal burning plants reducing 30% emissions isn't really seen the same way. 

I don't think China cares if we beat them to 50% less pollution .... I really don't, and when the other side doesn't care that you're "winning" .... it changes the race don't it ?

 
supermike80 said:
Why?    I'm not getting the "obvious"

It's a legit topic IMO.   Why do you not agree?
Click to expand...
I think Doc is addressing the pie-in-the-sky people who think China and India will ever stop. They won't, and it's obvious. It's why I finally framed the question the way it needs to be framed. The way the media in the Western world won't and can't frame it considering who consumes their news.

It's obvious because the two most populous countries, where much of the populace lives in abject poverty, will continue to develop at the risk of emitting severe pollutants into the environment. You thought the smog in seventies L.A. was bad before the EPA was created, wait for this stuff...

 
rockaction said:
I think Doc is addressing the pie-in-the-sky people who think China and India will ever stop. They won't, and it's obvious. It's why I finally framed the question the way it needs to be framed. The way the media in the Western world won't and can't frame it considering who consumes their news.

It's obvious because the two most populous countries, where much of the populace lives in abject poverty, will continue to develop at the risk of emitting severe pollutants into the environment. You thought the smog in seventies L.A. was bad before the EPA was created, wait for this stuff...
Click to expand...
Not to mention Africa.  If and when they develop their middle class, as many of us hope happens, then this will only get worse.  

 
rockaction said:
I think Doc is addressing the pie-in-the-sky people who think China and India will ever stop. They won't, and it's obvious. It's why I finally framed the question the way it needs to be framed. The way the media in the Western world won't and can't frame it considering who consumes their news.

It's obvious because the two most populous countries, where much of the populace lives in abject poverty, will continue to develop at the risk of emitting severe pollutants into the environment. You thought the smog in seventies L.A. was bad before the EPA was created, wait for this stuff...
Click to expand...
When China decides to clean up their act, it will be done.  That's one advantage of their system of government - they can do big things pretty quick.  And I'm telling you - they can be incentivized to do so, but it means the rest of the world has to be on board.

I can't speak for India.

 
rockaction said:
 I agree with this. Should they desire, they can order it. That is the function of a totalitarian, technologically advanced state. But India and Africa likely cannot.
Click to expand...
Africa and India are tougher nuts to crack, but if we had EU, US, and China all on board, things could happen.  Investments and the like.

We can't start the snowball if we can't work it ourselves.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top