What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

LOL, high speed rail?

That is what we have cars and planes for. If it is too far to drive, take a plane.

Nobody will use that crap, not economically viable in a country this size.

Build it, and they won't come

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: enlightenedservant

LOL, high speed rail?

That is what we have cars and planes for. If it is too far to drive, take a plane.

Nobody will use that crap, not economically viable in a country this size.

Build it, and they won't come

Yeah, Fly and possibly be delayed.

Wouldn't work cross country, but say from LA to SF/Vegas, or DC to NY, I could see it being viable.

Hey guys, calm down. You're all worked up over cute gas fumes. Just wait till Yellowstone blows. You'll be crying for gas fumes and human made pollution within the first twenty four hours. At least our pollution isn't totally radioactive, looking at you Japan. *Wags finger at mother earth and Japan.*

Earth is a naughty, naughty girl.

a reply to: LDragonFire

1: We must accept that we live in the midst of a climate change.

2: We must accept that we can do nothing to change it.

3: The mankind, not the world government, must start chaotic, not centrally planned, preparations on how to survive through this change.

Chaos is the natural way of organising most complex tasks for an optimal output.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: LDragonFire

The world should mind its own business, and frankly so should the USA. If the rest of the world wants to see results, they should set an example for the US to follow...but that wont happen, because climate change is not man made, and so far all efforts to stop this boogeyman have turned out to be tax collection schemes.

You can't "mind your own business" nor simply not comply with a global problem that affects everyone. Any country, especially a powerful one, not going with the program and committing to real change is a threat to everyone. They do have a right to call out the US.

The science and evidence is in, climate change is real. To not do something about it now may be calamitous in 50 years. In fact, it may be too late now already.

Hence, at some point, the denialists are a true danger and should be treated as such. Your denialism is a danger to everyone, including my children.

And, because it's real, responsibility would dictate that at some point, it is perfectly responsible for governments to force people like you to comply.

Ignorant people cannot be allowed to stop needed action to save our future. Sovereignty doesn't count for things that dangerously affect other countries, just like your personal freedoms end at the line that you are affecting me.

a reply to: LDragonFire

There is always the USA's favorite weapon these days. Economic sanctions.

I bet this is the thread where if you didn't realize it already, you realize how conservative in a climate-change denying kind of way ATS can be.

A lot of ATS members are of that bent.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: JDmOKI

Lead by example?

They won't because here's the dirty little secret: The carbon trading schemes set up by those countries who have them allow them to more or less gain advantage by paying off China to pollute for them. China builds a power plant or other carbon heavy enterprise and some EU country pays them to do so. It's a money-maker for China on more than one front, but it let's the greenies in places that have carbon credits feel absolved because they "did something" (basically outsourced their pollution).

originally posted by: NthOther
The rest of the world is in no moral position to lecture (or attack) anyone.

We are all to blame. This does not, however, absolve of us of our responsibility to change our ways.

Even if we cannot change the ways of others.

There is truth to what you are saying.

But, when it comes to environmental impact or climate responsibility, there are countries with far more responsibility. We know already who has emitted the most carbon and other greenhouse gases over time. GHGs accumulate and must be measured accordingly. The top contributors to environmental impact are basically all of the first countries to industrialize, or most prodigious ones. The only exceptions to this are China and India.

www.theguardian.com...

Historical emissions

"Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

Of course, it's also possible to look at historical emissions per person, which turns things around yet again. In this view, the UK shoots close to the top of the rankings, while China drops towards the bottom.

1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes"



Also, as far as negotiations and responsibility, due to the above there is the already agreed upon concept in international affairs of "Common but Differentiated Responsibility" (CBDR). What this means is, the international community has already analyzed who has benefited from their own abject environmental impact since the Industrial Revolution, and who did not do to late adoption. Most of the poorer countries industrialized late and did not get chance to go through the abject development that the West and Japan got to go through. Hence, not only do these wealthier historic emitters have a responsibility to do MORE regarding climate change, due to their having impacted the environment more (factually), but they need to help the poorer countries with tech transfer, financial help, etc, in order to develop without as much environmental impact as the original countries produced in their development.

^This is how the real negotiations are happening. Everyone recognizes this, even the West. But many, including the US, are balking because it is difficult to truly take responsibility under CBDR.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

They'll call out the US and ignore the countries like China and India? You know why. It's because countries like China and India could care less and will tell them where to stick it whereas we have enough people who will feel guilty over it and eventually force everyone here to live in caves to comply, and when that isn't enough, you'll all start demanding that we cull ourselves to comply.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So you believe in the sins of the fathers?

This is basically just another means of flogging us all for being guilty of *gasp* Western Civilization.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

They'll call out the US and ignore the countries like China and India? You know why. It's because countries like China and India could care less and will tell them where to stick it whereas we have enough people who will feel guilty over it and eventually force everyone here to live in caves to comply, and when that isn't enough, you'll all start demanding that we cull ourselves to comply.

But they aren't ignoring China and India. At the international level, and in negotiations, everyone is on the table. See my post above yours.

And your second point is a straw man argument. The solution is not going to entail what you are suggesting. There are plenty of sustainable yet fully economically viable options.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So you believe in the sins of the fathers?

This is basically just another means of flogging us all for being guilty of *gasp* Western Civilization.

Even not counting historic emissions, the list is relatively similar for current emitters.

The concept I mentioned (CBDR) is already analyzed and agreed upon by everyone at that level, including the US. It is a real negotiation issue. There are countless studies and papers on it. climate.diplomacy.edu...

When it comes to countries and their responsibilities, you can't think of them purely in the sense of the individuals still alive. A country has to be assessed for its impact beyond the current generation. This is simple responsibility.

The CBDR principle has more to do with present action. All countries have the right to develop. If we are to tell even developing countries that they can't enjoy the same Industrial Revolution kind of abject development to become a wealthy country, but instead must use much more sustainable methods, then because we enjoyed the privilege of doing it the other way we must help them to transition and develop sustainably. If we don't, they won't. And then needed climate action thereby will not occur. And we'll all be effed.

Whether you like it or not, what I am describing is what is being negotiated as we speak.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So you believe in the sins of the fathers?

This is basically just another means of flogging us all for being guilty of *gasp* Western Civilization.

I'd say it is more like the free transfer of lessons learned. Like a parent teaching a child because the parent has lived through the situation and can educate the child to avoid it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LDragonFire

There is always the USA's favorite weapon these days. Economic sanctions.

Good to hear from you bud.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How quickly do you think America would change its act if other countries were to levy sanctions against us? I guarantee you that many businesses would be standing up against climate change denial science rather quickly,

Either that or it'd bring manufacturing jobs home and Americans can relearn what it feels like to live in a smog filled country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How quickly do you think America would change its act if other countries were to levy sanctions against us? I guarantee you that many businesses would be standing up against climate change denial science rather quickly,

Either that or it'd bring manufacturing jobs home and Americans can relearn what it feels like to live in a smog filled country.

I think that real sanctions would probably get people's attention quickly.

However, the US is the only real superpower. Not only that, it still basically dictates most international action, including through bodies such as the UN. So nobody really has the power currently to levy real consequences on the US.

This is why the US needs to lead on climate change, because it IS the leader and power in the world. We set ourselves up to be that at any cost since WWII, so we need to now accept that power for the right aims, climate action.

Unfortunately, if the US and a couple other global leaders don't get it together, needed and timely climate action ain't going to happen.

I suspect unfortunately that we may have to change our society the hard way: Instead of proactively changing now before calamity, having to have a global environmental catastrophe that forces even the most ardent denialists or most selfish company to have to change. I hope we can do the first way.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: LDragonFire

What are YOU smoking?

China is the #1 ranking in polution..so thick you can literally cut it with a knife. Sure, believe it and stopping it...China isn't on board.

And did you just blame the USA on China's lack of care about climate change?

It's obviously Bush's fault.

The world continually tells the USA to butt out, leave the world alone, stop forcing things on everyone... then turns around and wants to know why we aren't bossing the rest of the world about pollution control. You just can't win.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: LDragonFire

Why are you worried about the USA when China and india both have massive populations and love to burn coal with zero regulations. get ready in about 5 years or less when China has a even more growing middle class and no regulations.

China leads 1st for all greenhouse gas emissions presently, but is behind the US historically or emissions per capita. US is second for current emissions. US overall is still the bigger polluter.

Moreover, your point fails because the US Is not only the global leader in international affairs but also a developed country. We need to lead and even as 2nd biggest emitter, take action. Anything else is irresponsible.

www.theguardian.com...