Actually I still think China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets - and as I've outlined, I don't think the 'Our World in Data' figures you rely on show otherwise, when placed in a broader, and less western-centric context.
But the more interesting and vital point is our disagreement over 'development models'. You're suggesting, as I understand it, that the key aspects I outlined of 'the good life' in developed economies - enough food, communications, arts, universal education, healthcare, water, sewerage, power, etc - must be accompanied by destructive over-consumption, or at least by fossil fuel use and high emissions - and that it is therefore impossible to achieve this for most of the world. Further, you see no difference between the development models of different countries in this respect - for you, because they all use fossil fuels, there is no difference between China and the US, Canada or Cuba, Norway or Russia.
But most people, I think - me included - see big differences between these models. They have all, historically, used fossil fuels and created emissions - true, obvious - it was the only energy source available to build the sewers, etc - but that doesn't mean (in my view) they are all the same when it comes to responding to climate/ecological breakdown now.
Do you think none will respond, even as the crisis worsens?
I think they will, but differently. Crucially, I think the level of state control and openness to big, interventionist government in, say, Norway or China, places them in an entirely different position to, say, the US - and I think we already see the beginnings of such differences in their actions.
Personally, I see no realistic alternative at this stage to massive state intervention - rather in the way the UK government effectively took control over much of industry and trade in the Second World War. I wonder if you have an alternative? Do you think 'the market', via technological fixes, consumer choices, or whatever, will sort out the mess? Or (I'm still not sure) do you just think - in Private Fraser's words - 'we're doomed'?
Bread and Circuses (npub1a6c…mqgc) Bill Orcutt (npub1860…d2dk) RustyBertrand (npub1hw2…xxzd) bouriquet (npub1u9y…pqt8)
GeofCox /
npub1vl…zwvr0
2024-04-29 07:11:13
in reply to nevent1q…0hef
Author Public Key
npub1vlytzan7n5hw4pctchr9kdgy3q77k2nmgk6lpwk7mapufl9ssrvsyzwvr0Published at
2024-04-29 07:11:13Event JSON
{
"id": "f1a273004bb0768f536055cec2d4a4cb1034475be41de88b3b98079ed04adb0f",
"pubkey": "67c8b1767e9d2eea870bc5c65b3504883deb2a7b45b5f0badedf43c4fcb080d9",
"created_at": 1714374673,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"3e9ff55cab3897499323059f267d917683cf74c4d5d4b87c9e07aca702c6de7c"
],
[
"p",
"bb9482d6fa775623cd6efc29893249ae9d8707a0d784ecc5557d1a9b9acd04a1"
],
[
"p",
"67c8b1767e9d2eea870bc5c65b3504883deb2a7b45b5f0badedf43c4fcb080d9"
],
[
"p",
"eeb176be491fceec57c1da56a053eab36075cab6f49e7cfa388659a2e319ef34"
],
[
"p",
"e149926a6f839550eda52bc11664804aba1d599e4c53c4f1497b3ae5e35b2bcd"
],
[
"e",
"22647130332e45ae69713b24bd1a5e16d0dba2af5c70848ede6a23b8ad58eba8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"422a4bbf478625b950ea19cf13fc04775a26ca8a690ca2b17a38ef61cf36d255"
],
[
"e",
"d1a6b61d086fed60a2247991521175159cea8cf1cf463a6024b74a20552fd4aa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://climatejustice.social/users/GeofCox/statuses/112353258629273495",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://climatejustice.social/users/GeofCox/statuses/112353258629273495",
"pink.momostr"
]
],
"content": "Actually I still think China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets - and as I've outlined, I don't think the 'Our World in Data' figures you rely on show otherwise, when placed in a broader, and less western-centric context.\n\nBut the more interesting and vital point is our disagreement over 'development models'. You're suggesting, as I understand it, that the key aspects I outlined of 'the good life' in developed economies - enough food, communications, arts, universal education, healthcare, water, sewerage, power, etc - must be accompanied by destructive over-consumption, or at least by fossil fuel use and high emissions - and that it is therefore impossible to achieve this for most of the world. Further, you see no difference between the development models of different countries in this respect - for you, because they all use fossil fuels, there is no difference between China and the US, Canada or Cuba, Norway or Russia.\n\nBut most people, I think - me included - see big differences between these models. They have all, historically, used fossil fuels and created emissions - true, obvious - it was the only energy source available to build the sewers, etc - but that doesn't mean (in my view) they are all the same when it comes to responding to climate/ecological breakdown now.\n\nDo you think none will respond, even as the crisis worsens? \n\nI think they will, but differently. Crucially, I think the level of state control and openness to big, interventionist government in, say, Norway or China, places them in an entirely different position to, say, the US - and I think we already see the beginnings of such differences in their actions.\n\nPersonally, I see no realistic alternative at this stage to massive state intervention - rather in the way the UK government effectively took control over much of industry and trade in the Second World War. I wonder if you have an alternative? Do you think 'the market', via technological fixes, consumer choices, or whatever, will sort out the mess? Or (I'm still not sure) do you just think - in Private Fraser's words - 'we're doomed'?\n\nnostr:npub1a6chd0jfrl8wc47pmft2q5l2kds8tj4k7j08e73csev69cceau6q8lmqgc nostr:npub1860l2h9t8zt5nyerqk0jvlv3w6pu7axy6h2tsly7q7k2wqkxme7qudd2dk nostr:npub1hw2g94h6watz8ntwls5cjvjf46wcwpaq67zwe32405dfhxkdqjssq7xxzd nostr:npub1u9yey6n0sw24pmd990q3veyqf2ap6kv7f3fufu2f0vawtc6m90xsrupqt8",
"sig": "4f3a52f04737aa1895c5a2936aa6ca303cea07c347933845d9bf24554edd958a7e2adbb369e88866c12d3552e1ed0adff1a02046eb182385b9a30bf74ab20b2c"
}