Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NeedMoreTea 2409 days ago
There is a vast difference between what the entire fucking world promised at Paris and what they have actually done since. Only the EU seems to have certain intent to move toward neutrality and their efforts have, at best, been intermittent and inconsistent.

Meanwhile the West keeps sending more business, more manufacturing and more recycling to China - they are, in no small part, merely moving the accounting of the West's emissions. Of course they are also a developing country - it's not realistic for them to do that entirely sustainably without Western subsidy - an idea not discussed seriously since probably Rio in the early 90s, when there was briefly talk of an intent to help the developing world fast-track right past our dirty phase of development. China have been inconsistent about coal too. So have some countries in the best performing bloc, the EU. Notably The Netherlands, Poland and Germany.
1 comments
nradov 2409 days ago
You're not wrong, but from a political standpoint it's impossible to justify giving any sort of subsidies to China as long as they're pursuing an expansionist foreign policy and have nuclear missiles pointed at us.
link
NeedMoreTea 2408 days ago
USA, Russia and others point missiles at plenty of places too - that is not a reason or even valid excuse.

I do think it was absurd China (and to a lesser extent India) came out of Paris with an almost limitless potential to increase emissions until 2030. Neither are undeveloped and remotely like the world's poorest.

A more sensible approach would have been to tie subsidy to each, and every trade deal. An EU or USA that truly cared about emissions would impose a carbon or renewables levy on products coming in from China and others. The US would push their pet the WTO to bake in emissions into global trade rules.

Had any of that been done round about Rio, or even as late as Paris, we might have a far more optimistic outlook.

link
jngreenlee 2409 days ago
"Everything before the "but" is meant to be ignored by the speaker; and everything after the "but" should be ignored by the listener." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
link
nradov 2409 days ago
Yes we all know that Taleb is a snarky psuedo intellectual who isn't actually as smart as he thinks he is. You don't need to point that out by reposting his nonsense ramblings.
link