[serf]

> Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence?

did I fall asleep in class when they mentioned that it was the American pollution that was particularly bad for the world?

if blame-pointing is the primary concern here, doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?

[camillomiller]

Not per capita. Plus, the American army alone, which doesn’t need to adhere to any carbon limiting rule and isn’t counted into the US’s carbon emissions, is known to produce more CO2 than many industrialized nations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...

[bigfudge]

>doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?

Certainly not per capita. And China and other developing countries have been emitting large amounts of co2 for only a very short period relatively speaking. We have gained the benefits of industrialisation but other poorer nations are beating the costs. This is why American and European pollution is different and must be addressed as a priority.

[marginalia_nu]

I don't think that makes sense. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is emitted. The climate doesn't care about what is fair.

[bigfudge]

The climate doesn’t care about what is fair, but people do and this needs to be considered if we want to succeed.

Most individuals in China consume way less than most individuals in the US and emit less carbon. That they live under the same totalitarian govt is unlikely to make them sympathetic to the view that their personal sacrifice should be higher as we fight a global challenge.

[theplumber]

>> is unlikely to make them sympathetic to the view that their personal sacrifice should be higher as we fight a global challenge.

I doubt they are willingly making sacrifices. They are just forced to do that...the poor people consume less because they cannot grab more.

[marginalia_nu]

The problem is that everyone plays this game.

The voters blame the politicians. The politicians blame the voters for voting wrong. The communists blame capitalism. Capitalism blames capitalism. The consumers blame the producers for producing the wrong thing. The producers blame the consumers for wanting the wrong thing. The east blames the west. The west blames the east. Cats blame dogs. Dogs blame cats.

In a sense yeah. They are all right, they are all right because we are all to blame. Each and every one of us bear this guilt. We all could have done differently. And if we keep sitting in a circle pointing fingers at each other, if we don't all own up to this responsibility, who is to blame won't matter, because there will hardly be anyone left to point fingers in a few hundred years.

We either fix this together or we all lose alone (although comforted by the thought that surely someone else was more at fault).

[dontlaugh]

Historical emissions are still in the atmosphere, continually heating it up.

And per-capita emissions today are still vastly higher in North America and (most of) Western Europe than the rest of the world.

[marginalia_nu]

Sure, but history is immutable. The only thing we can change is future emissions.

[tchaffee]

History can determine who should have the highest remaining allowance.

[marginalia_nu]

What you will find is that everyone will have a reason why they aren't as bad as the other group, and forge on as though it's someone else's problem. There is always someone else who is more to blame, more at fault.

[tchaffee]

Why does China produce so much CO2? Making products for Westerners hugely contributes to that, doesn't it? So yeah, the blame really does need to point to Western consumption habits.