[windexh8er]

This is an ineffective approach. No country can assume any other will fall in line to "do the same". This creates a do nothing approach because it turns doing the right thing, by taking the first steps, into a game of finger pointing. War is definitely not the answer and is 100% counterproductive to the end goal.

If all countries, that are supposedly interested in being the best climate change affectors, all competed to truly be the best - we'd be in a far better spot. The war you allude to is not international in nature. It's national. If the US, for example, actually removed campaign contributions and lobbying allowances from organizations responsible for a majority of annual pollution we'd already be down the road. But instead it is national politics, and those legislators, that are the real roadblock to starting the snowball move towards clean technology.

[Consultant32452]

The problem with this approach, which I was trying to highlight, is that as long as "doing better by climate change" implies "economic disadvantage" there will be major polluters who do not get on board. What will you do with them? If you really believe this is an existential crisis for humanity, you must be willing to destroy these countries. Choose your poison: bomb them to oblivion or sanction/starve them to death. That is why this is a failed approach.

[windexh8er]

Your logic assumes everything in the world to be equal. The world is messy. If we don't start we all lose. The Internet wasn't bootstrapped because the world's countries all agreed on exactly the right way to implement networks and protocols and there are countries that have both contributed very little opposed to those that have contributed a lot. Moving to clean energy has huge economic advantage. So, again, your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational. Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact.

[Consultant32452]

>If we don't start we all lose.

I didn't suggest we don't start. I suggested the "everyone pass laws" plan has a fatal flaw the size of China and India.

>your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational.

That's not my plan, it's yours. "Laws" are the get on board or be destroyed approach. You can do it domestically pretty easy, but it's much harder across national boundaries.

>Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact.

China already emits more than twice the US CO2. China is on track to double its emissions by 2030. How far are you willing to go to stop them? It's a very simple question.

[windexh8er]

> Choose your poison: bomb them to oblivion or sanction/starve them to death. That is why this is a failed approach.

>That's not my plan, it's yours.

Really? If you want to try and give your argument legs at least try not to contradict yourself in the same thread. And please don't state I made a claim falsely.

Also...

>China is on track to double its emissions by 2030

This isn't actually true [0].

[0] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/current-pol...

[Consultant32452]

>Really? If you want to try and give your argument legs at least try not to contradict yourself in the same thread. And please don't state I made a claim falsely.

I was explaining how the "we're all just going to pass laws" plan is the plan which leads to violence. You even copied the part where I said "That is why this is a failed approach."

>This isn't actually true [0].

The report I was reading is from 2009. If you include its emissions from deforestation and farming (as much as 1/3 of its emissions) it's still very closely on track.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-to-Double-P...

[NeedMoreTea]

China will stop when they contracted to and not before -- although their rapidly declining air quality may influence more action sooner. They have had a "developing country" pass through UN climate agreements as did India. I suspect no one 30 years ago expected us to be little further forward, nor China and India having mostly developed past "developing" status. COP25 was a joke sadly, so, we're screwed...

I think China committed and signed on to start reducing emissions in 2025 or 2030, I forget which.

[imtringued]

Why would you need to stop China? They have invested more into renewable energy and electric transportation than any other country.

[Consultant32452]

If we accept the axiom that CO2 emissions are an eminent threat to the existence of humanity, then I think the answer is obvious. This isn't a friendly competition for who can invest the most in green tech. This is a life or death race to rid the world of carbon emissions. The world's largest polluter doubling its emissions over the next decade cannot be accepted under those conditions.