It is a sad state of affairs that long term approaches to profit are not more prized. US industry paired with massive government subsidy/partnership could work together effectively, as exemplified historically by the creation of the internet, modern computing and telecommunications infrastructure, and look at this dire situation we find ourselves in as an opportunity to compete on a global level to produce renewable and green energy technologies. Seems like a missed opportunity on a number of fronts.
This article brings to mind an interview I watched earlier today - Chris Hedges has a show, On Contact, which airs on RT - he recently interviewed Christian Parenti, author of 'Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence' (aired 6.18.2017). They addressed positive feedback loops, violence that has climate change as the impetus, migration and refugee status and more.
So it's the US's fault that other countries are acting badly? This blame game isn't even coherent. China, India, and some of the other disproportionate polluters are to blame, not some whack job US president who decided not to subsidize some other participant economies in the short term to get a pinky promise they would do better, in the interest of the planet.
Yes it is to some extent. That's what it means to be a global leader and to have the world's largest economy. People watch what you are doing and other countries see what works for you and try to follow your example.
Currently the US is 1 of 3 countries not cooperating on climate change. The western world has racked up a huge pollution deficit over the last 120 years. China, and India have only been at it for 50. But at least they are at the table.
The current Administration is missing the big picture, worried only about the next 4 years. The new green economy is being built right now, and the US has told the world it doesn't want to participate. Why would any other world buy US solar panels when they won't even fulfill their agreement in the Paris accord. They'll buy China, or Brazil or any other country. Please think bigger picture. The present is short, the future is long. Go long.
> Currently the US is 1 of 3 countries not cooperating on climate change
That's demonstrably false as a leader in environmentally friendly technology (both participation and development). Specifically, what you consider cooperating is not what I consider cooperating. The confusion of politics and the physical condition of the earth, is not constructive.
"Why should we do the right thing unless other countries do exactly what we want" is pretty transparently a political argument, so I'm afraid that ship sailed already with you at the helm.
> Why should we do the right thing unless other countries do exactly what we want
That's not my sentiment. The right thing is the question at hand, as to attempting to combat global warming, not hoping for some pyrrhic PR victory. If that's more effective than the data, it's time for a new strategy anyway. Inflating the importance of these treaties is shockingly naiive. Short term, expensive, non binding actions with proven bad actors is borderline counterproductive.
China and India have much lower per capita CO2 footprints. So they are disproportionate in a good way. (Though the still need to do better, like everyone else)
Individuals can do better, but nations in aggregate are acting to increase global warming. The CO2 footprint game is a tool for political spin, not identifying what bodies are at fault now. Is it the US because the President broke out of a non-binding treaty? or China as the actual physical top polluter? or India who is poised to compete for that position despite existing agreements to reduce emissions already in place? (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/india-opening...)
It's one thing to be positive and denounce symbolic political actions, but it's another to lose sight of what's going on in the world and weighing the physical effects.
I wish we had more engineers in politics. The politicians and Trumps of the world don't understand how to solve problems, just how to convince you that it's not their fault or worse what's shiny enough to distract. We need solutions, not a bitch fest.
16 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 50.7 ms ] threadThis article brings to mind an interview I watched earlier today - Chris Hedges has a show, On Contact, which airs on RT - he recently interviewed Christian Parenti, author of 'Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence' (aired 6.18.2017). They addressed positive feedback loops, violence that has climate change as the impetus, migration and refugee status and more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqZe6Xqwzc
The current Administration is missing the big picture, worried only about the next 4 years. The new green economy is being built right now, and the US has told the world it doesn't want to participate. Why would any other world buy US solar panels when they won't even fulfill their agreement in the Paris accord. They'll buy China, or Brazil or any other country. Please think bigger picture. The present is short, the future is long. Go long.
That's demonstrably false as a leader in environmentally friendly technology (both participation and development). Specifically, what you consider cooperating is not what I consider cooperating. The confusion of politics and the physical condition of the earth, is not constructive.
That's not my sentiment. The right thing is the question at hand, as to attempting to combat global warming, not hoping for some pyrrhic PR victory. If that's more effective than the data, it's time for a new strategy anyway. Inflating the importance of these treaties is shockingly naiive. Short term, expensive, non binding actions with proven bad actors is borderline counterproductive.
It's one thing to be positive and denounce symbolic political actions, but it's another to lose sight of what's going on in the world and weighing the physical effects.
Many people don't agree with you opinion "decided not subsidize" and describe that as a much more serious crime.
The median USian is a person who is disproportionately responsible for accelerating climate change, but suffers from none of its ill effects.
The median Chinese/Indian is a person who bears a fraction of the carbon load, while disproportionately suffering from its effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...