It doesn't take precedence - it's the same problem. The Russian won't be able to heat his home when the economy collapses due to climate change.
Hmm. That's something new. Please explain the mechanism of this "economy collapse" due to climate change, and especially why you think it will affect a Russian's ability to afford to heat his home. Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
Eventually, we will have to reduce our GHG output. Now is the best time because now (a) we have the finances, not later, when we are made poor, but still facing the same problem and (b) renewables are at price parity, and due their flexibility and low startup costs, ideal for places like india and africa, since you don't need to spend quidtillions on poles and wires.
The longer we leave it, the more expensive (in real terms) it will be.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people. You seem to be saying this trend will reverse in the future. What will cause it to reverse? How?
And while all of this is interesting, it doesn't answer the original question of why the Kiribati resident is owed his chosen lifestyle ahead of an African or Indian or Chinese person who needs energy.
I don't think the Russian who wants to heat his home is acting unethically. Nor the Indian who buys air conditioning, nor the Canadian who flies to Europe for vacation, nor anyone else going about his or her daily life.
Regardless of what the emissions are today, if you look at historical emissions, it's Western countries that have contributed to the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 that is in atmosphere now, and that is the proper definition for accountability purposes.
Why do historical emissions matter more than the same amount of current and future emissions?
Except everyone is just minding their own business. The woman in China who wants fresh vegetables that have to be transported to her is minding her own business. As is the African who wants running water, and the Indian who wants air conditioning, and the American who drives to work and the Russian who heats his home. And everyone else.
The difference seems to be that you hate the US. Go ahead. It still doesn't answer the basic question of why the Kiribati resident matters and the Russian doesn't. Unless your answer is "people I hate don't matter" -- which is a sentiment that ISIS and the Klan would probably agree with, but not really something that non-haters would go along with.
Yes. But the point is "what about Kiribati's future?" isn't a persuasive argument for millions or billions of people changing anything significant. If you want to say millions or billions of people should change for their own good, then say that instead.
Incidentally, I'm also not super sympathetic to rich coastal dwellers with beach houses.
You could ask the Chinese woman who wants fresh vegetables, or the Indian and African fellows who want air conditioning and running water. What do you think they'd say? Perhaps they would say they understand, but they aren't willing to give up what's important to them to benefit the Kiribati.
What kind of restitution/solutions do you think these people should offer? An alternate place to live, at least. What else?
Another one of you. You think Kiribati residents will just stand there as the water rises over the years and in 50 or 100 years it will be over their heads and they will drown. Is it just Kiribati residents you think are that stupid? Or do you also look down on other people based on their race or nationality?
Why should the millions of US citizens be justified in causing more damage to the environment than the billions of people from the other countries? If you don't care who suffers just so you can lead the lifestyle you want...
I thought that was the whole point of this story. Kiribati residents are owed a lifestyle regardless of the tradeoffs everyone else in the world would have to make for their lifestyle to be maintained. It leads to the still-unanswered question "why does one group matter more than another?".
It's actually a similar question. Note that they can't even answer the question when it's Kiribati residents vs. the hated bourgeois American middle class. The notion that "these people matter and these other people don't" is one that seems to dissipate when you ask the simple question "why?".
...if you want to reduce the production, you have to understand who is producing it.
It's trending down in the US because it's being reduced by "who is producing it". In some other countries, it's trending up because it's being increased by "who is producing it".
It's not like the per capita GHG emissions are staying the same and the population is changing either. Per capita GHG emissions trends are in the same basic direction as absolute trends.
What is that an argument for? If people "care", will things work out differently? Will anyone ever return the favor and "care" about the US?
GHG emissions from the US are trending down, whereas they're trending up for other countries. If that continues, will the US be to blame in 40 or 50 years? Do you think there's something more productive for people to do than finger-pointing and blame-distribution?
Not by a long shot... Per capita the US is still...
Does the climate realize it should care about per capita emissions rather than absolute numbers? I don't think temperatures and sea levels respond to that kind of equivocation.
Why does a Kiribati life matter more than an American's trophy fishing?
I understand. You think Kiribati residents will just stand there as the water rises year after year and in 50 or 100 years it will be over their heads and they will drown. What did Kiribati residents do to deserve the extremely low opinion you have of them?
Why not just be honest and say "Why does the Kiribati's problem take precedence over the American who wants a bigger SUV to tow his boat down his vacation home on the man-made lake so he can fish for trophies?"
But even if it weren't, try answering your own question. Why does the Kiribati resident matter more the the American? Why do thousands of Kiribati matter more than millions of Americans?
Why should they foot the bill for such a project...
Because they are the ones that benefit. Why does the world owe a Kiribati resident a problem-free life on a tropical island? Why does the Kiribati's problem with sea level take precedence over the Russian who wants to heat his home in the winter? Or the guy in India or Africa who wants running water and air conditioning in the summer? Or the Chinese woman who wants to buy fresh fruits and vegetables that need to be transported to her town?
We just had this topic a few days ago. Are these stories supposed to convince us that billions of people around the world should give up on affordable energy for the convenience of thousands living on Pacific atolls? Does India owe it to Kiribati to keep the Indian people artificially poor for another half century until non-carbon energy is cheap enough?
If not, then what's the point? "Kiribati leaders feel sad about what they think will happen in 50 years"? Lots of people who tell themselves sad stories (whether true, false, or unknown) about the future feel sad about it.
It's not about finding a way to micromanage everyone's driving that "works". Let people drive without being micromanaged. That "works" adequately versus the alternatives when you consider all the benefits and drawbacks to the public. Save enforcement for recklessness.
If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time.
Would that be the end of the world? Is it worth all the bad things that come with higher fines and enforcement by armed officers to keep it from happening?
I don't think it is. At some point you just have to say "we aren't going to micromanage everyone's daily driving using fines backed by government bullying, ultimately backed by armed enforcement". Instead of pretending we can micromanage everyone, let's just build safe, efficient roads, safe cars, and concentrate the enforcement on drunk or reckless drivers.
Because you can't eat coal. You can't drink sea water or untreated river water full of fossil derived pollutants. A diesel tractor isn't going to help if your farm is under 1m of salt water.
You can use fossil fuel to mechanize and automate farming. You can use coal to generate electricity to pump water up hill to irrigate crops. You can use electricity to clean river water to make it safe to drink. You can use diesel equipment to create dams and walls for flood-control.
Because when parts of the country become uninhabitable people will be forced to migrate in large numbers. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think lots of people are leaving Syria right now, did they get a brochure in the mail advertising the glamorous European lifestyle or did they leave when making a long and dangerous journey away from their homes was the only option?
Has the Syrian migration caused millions to die? Has it caused "extreme poverty"? Is a gradual increase in sea level over the course of a century a bigger problem for the people affected than ISIS?
Indians will industrialize using whatever the cheapest technology is, like we did.
And they should. Regardless of whether it's bad of the Marshal Islands.
Do we really want to turn India into a chinese copycat a.k.a.victorian era steam-punk apocalypse? I think the hindi have more sense than to desire or even accept such a future. Less material wealth, but more spiritual value and more tolerance is their way of life.
China has almost 5x the per capita GDP as India ($8280 vs. $1688). Would the average person want his income to go up by 5x?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't take precedence - it's the same problem. The Russian won't be able to heat his home when the economy collapses due to climate change.
Hmm. That's something new. Please explain the mechanism of this "economy collapse" due to climate change, and especially why you think it will affect a Russian's ability to afford to heat his home. Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
Eventually, we will have to reduce our GHG output. Now is the best time because now (a) we have the finances, not later, when we are made poor, but still facing the same problem and (b) renewables are at price parity, and due their flexibility and low startup costs, ideal for places like india and africa, since you don't need to spend quidtillions on poles and wires.
The longer we leave it, the more expensive (in real terms) it will be.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people. You seem to be saying this trend will reverse in the future. What will cause it to reverse? How?
And while all of this is interesting, it doesn't answer the original question of why the Kiribati resident is owed his chosen lifestyle ahead of an African or Indian or Chinese person who needs energy.
I don't think the Russian who wants to heat his home is acting unethically. Nor the Indian who buys air conditioning, nor the Canadian who flies to Europe for vacation, nor anyone else going about his or her daily life.
Regardless of what the emissions are today, if you look at historical emissions, it's Western countries that have contributed to the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 that is in atmosphere now, and that is the proper definition for accountability purposes.
Why do historical emissions matter more than the same amount of current and future emissions?
Except everyone is just minding their own business. The woman in China who wants fresh vegetables that have to be transported to her is minding her own business. As is the African who wants running water, and the Indian who wants air conditioning, and the American who drives to work and the Russian who heats his home. And everyone else.
The difference seems to be that you hate the US. Go ahead. It still doesn't answer the basic question of why the Kiribati resident matters and the Russian doesn't. Unless your answer is "people I hate don't matter" -- which is a sentiment that ISIS and the Klan would probably agree with, but not really something that non-haters would go along with.
Yes. But the point is "what about Kiribati's future?" isn't a persuasive argument for millions or billions of people changing anything significant. If you want to say millions or billions of people should change for their own good, then say that instead.
Incidentally, I'm also not super sympathetic to rich coastal dwellers with beach houses.
You could ask the Chinese woman who wants fresh vegetables, or the Indian and African fellows who want air conditioning and running water. What do you think they'd say? Perhaps they would say they understand, but they aren't willing to give up what's important to them to benefit the Kiribati.
What kind of restitution/solutions do you think these people should offer? An alternate place to live, at least. What else?
Another one of you. You think Kiribati residents will just stand there as the water rises over the years and in 50 or 100 years it will be over their heads and they will drown. Is it just Kiribati residents you think are that stupid? Or do you also look down on other people based on their race or nationality?
Why should the millions of US citizens be justified in causing more damage to the environment than the billions of people from the other countries? If you don't care who suffers just so you can lead the lifestyle you want...
I thought that was the whole point of this story. Kiribati residents are owed a lifestyle regardless of the tradeoffs everyone else in the world would have to make for their lifestyle to be maintained. It leads to the still-unanswered question "why does one group matter more than another?".
It's actually a similar question. Note that they can't even answer the question when it's Kiribati residents vs. the hated bourgeois American middle class. The notion that "these people matter and these other people don't" is one that seems to dissipate when you ask the simple question "why?".
...if you want to reduce the production, you have to understand who is producing it.
It's trending down in the US because it's being reduced by "who is producing it". In some other countries, it's trending up because it's being increased by "who is producing it".
It's not like the per capita GHG emissions are staying the same and the population is changing either. Per capita GHG emissions trends are in the same basic direction as absolute trends.
What is that an argument for? If people "care", will things work out differently? Will anyone ever return the favor and "care" about the US?
GHG emissions from the US are trending down, whereas they're trending up for other countries. If that continues, will the US be to blame in 40 or 50 years? Do you think there's something more productive for people to do than finger-pointing and blame-distribution?
Actually, GHG emissions from the US are trending down while other countries' emissions are trending up sharply. So your weird, angry finger-pointing is out of date.
Not by a long shot... Per capita the US is still ...
Does the climate realize it should care about per capita emissions rather than absolute numbers? I don't think temperatures and sea levels respond to that kind of equivocation.
Why does a Kiribati life matter more than an American's trophy fishing?
I understand. You think Kiribati residents will just stand there as the water rises year after year and in 50 or 100 years it will be over their heads and they will drown. What did Kiribati residents do to deserve the extremely low opinion you have of them?
Why not just be honest and say "Why does the Kiribati's problem take precedence over the American who wants a bigger SUV to tow his boat down his vacation home on the man-made lake so he can fish for trophies?"
Actually, GHG emissions from the US are trending down while other countries' emissions are trending up sharply. So your weird, angry finger-pointing is out of date.
But even if it weren't, try answering your own question. Why does the Kiribati resident matter more the the American? Why do thousands of Kiribati matter more than millions of Americans?
Why should they foot the bill for such a project ...
Because they are the ones that benefit. Why does the world owe a Kiribati resident a problem-free life on a tropical island? Why does the Kiribati's problem with sea level take precedence over the Russian who wants to heat his home in the winter? Or the guy in India or Africa who wants running water and air conditioning in the summer? Or the Chinese woman who wants to buy fresh fruits and vegetables that need to be transported to her town?
We just had this topic a few days ago. Are these stories supposed to convince us that billions of people around the world should give up on affordable energy for the convenience of thousands living on Pacific atolls? Does India owe it to Kiribati to keep the Indian people artificially poor for another half century until non-carbon energy is cheap enough?
If not, then what's the point? "Kiribati leaders feel sad about what they think will happen in 50 years"? Lots of people who tell themselves sad stories (whether true, false, or unknown) about the future feel sad about it.
Other people's civil rights don't primarily exist for you to feel comfortable.
So instead of having the government bully innocent Muslims, you'd have the government bully innocent gun owners?
It's not about finding a way to micromanage everyone's driving that "works". Let people drive without being micromanaged. That "works" adequately versus the alternatives when you consider all the benefits and drawbacks to the public. Save enforcement for recklessness.
If not for things like the courts and criminal justice system, why are we paying taxes?
To pay for pensions and giveaways to non-workers.
If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time.
Would that be the end of the world? Is it worth all the bad things that come with higher fines and enforcement by armed officers to keep it from happening?
I don't think it is. At some point you just have to say "we aren't going to micromanage everyone's daily driving using fines backed by government bullying, ultimately backed by armed enforcement". Instead of pretending we can micromanage everyone, let's just build safe, efficient roads, safe cars, and concentrate the enforcement on drunk or reckless drivers.
Then logically we should attack India to prevent the climate change they will cause harming us or costing us money.
Or we could just not worry about it.
Because you can't eat coal. You can't drink sea water or untreated river water full of fossil derived pollutants. A diesel tractor isn't going to help if your farm is under 1m of salt water.
You can use fossil fuel to mechanize and automate farming. You can use coal to generate electricity to pump water up hill to irrigate crops. You can use electricity to clean river water to make it safe to drink. You can use diesel equipment to create dams and walls for flood-control.
Because when parts of the country become uninhabitable people will be forced to migrate in large numbers. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think lots of people are leaving Syria right now, did they get a brochure in the mail advertising the glamorous European lifestyle or did they leave when making a long and dangerous journey away from their homes was the only option?
Has the Syrian migration caused millions to die? Has it caused "extreme poverty"? Is a gradual increase in sea level over the course of a century a bigger problem for the people affected than ISIS?
Indians will industrialize using whatever the cheapest technology is, like we did.
And they should. Regardless of whether it's bad of the Marshal Islands.
Do we really want to turn India into a chinese copycat a.k.a.victorian era steam-punk apocalypse? I think the hindi have more sense than to desire or even accept such a future. Less material wealth, but more spiritual value and more tolerance is their way of life.
China has almost 5x the per capita GDP as India ($8280 vs. $1688). Would the average person want his income to go up by 5x?
Maybe he'd settle for 3x for a while if there's no smog. But being poorer than China doesn't seem to be helping the air quality.
You should abandon your Florida property and move. As a favor to you, I will buy your doomed house in Florida for $2000. Get out while you still can.