Jack of all trades

I'm here to learn about the world and work through my climate grief.

I post about politics, climate change, economics, philosophy, being a father, programming, games, and more.

Just my toots: Jack of all trades (npub1gg4…euuk)">https://justmytoots.com/Jack of all trades (npub1gg4…euuk)

Public Key

npub1gg4yh068scjmj582r8838lqywadzdj52dyx29vt68rhkrnek6f2sd5euuk

NIP-05 Address

jackofalltrades_at_mas.to@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsyy2jtharcvfde2r4pnncnlsz8wk3xe29xjr9zk9ar3mmpeumdy4gemeta4

Author Public Key

npub1gg4yh068scjmj582r8838lqywadzdj52dyx29vt68rhkrnek6f2sd5euuk

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-08-02 07:23:52

"""
Halfway through the peak flood season, China has already experienced the highest number of significant floods since record keeping began in 1998, and the hottest July since 1961.
"""
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/02/china-flooding-record-weather
#ClimateChange #China

2024-07-23 12:38:32

Oh no, not the oil!
https://globalnews.ca/news/10636678/extreme-weather-oil-and-has-impact-canada/
#Canada #oil #ClimateChange #ClimateDiary #NotTheOnion

2024-07-14 15:48:05

- reply

Blame the economists or anthropocentrism in general?
@npub165c…tdlq

2024-07-14 15:46:33

Love this quote, it's a great example of how in most people's minds ecology is just a subset of economy, and not the other way around.
"""
“It’s the end of the world versus the end of the month,” Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the FNSEA, France’s largest farmers’ union, said in an interview. “There’s no point talking about farm practices that help save the environment, if farmers cannot make a living. Ecology without an economy makes no sense.”
"""
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/world/europe/angry-farmers-are-reshaping-europe.html
#economics #ecology

2024-07-13 13:14:22

Humanity looking for yet another way to speed up the carbon cycle.
https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=beROF-QJwoI
#ClimateChange #photosynthesis

2024-06-23 17:05:35

"""
In the short term, living in a state of peak denial helps us cope. In the long run, it will be our undoing. Because the danger here is desensitization: that we meet this unprecedented litany of “wicked problems,” from climate change to the rise of fascism, with passive acceptance rather than urgent collective action.
"""
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-hit-peak-denial-heres-why-we-cant-turn-away-from-reality/

2024-06-20 14:13:26

- reply

There's much more to development than just electricity. It's mostly infrastructure: roads, bridges, railroads, water and sewage systems, houses, ports, factories, schools, hospitals etc. In other words lots of steel and cement and shipping materials from all around the world. Can we do all of that without fossil fuels?

2024-06-20 10:42:18

- reply

Is development without fossil fuels even possible? Are countries in the global south condemned to follow the same biosphere-destroying route of development?

2024-06-20 10:42:10

"In advanced economies, we observe signs of demand for fossil fuels peaking, contrasting with economies in the global south for whom economic development and improvements in quality of life continue to drive fossil growth."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/fossil-fuel-use-reaches-global-record-despite-clean-energy-growth
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateDiary

2024-06-19 14:46:30

- reply

And of course they drive around in a German car.
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/643/826/409/320/328/original/69db03999f4f07eb.webp

2024-06-17 15:45:47

"""
Tensions are rising in a border dispute between the United States and Mexico. But this conflict is not about migration; it’s about water.
"""
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/17/climate/water-conflict-us-mexico-heat-drought/index.html
#ClimateChange #ClimateDiary #water #drought #USA #Mexico

2024-06-13 08:21:05

- reply

Thank you for looking into this!
And yeah, it's a huge undertaking.
I started reading the global sufficiency study (the second link) a while back, and have some notes, but will share once I finish it and organize my thoughts properly.

2024-06-02 11:34:52

- reply

Is it true that more healthcare = smaller population?
That sounds counterintuitive. Better healthcare, food security, etc. if distributed fairly means less children die prematurely, people don't die of random diseases, and overall most people live longer. Meaning population could still grow with a smaller fertility rate.
@npub1mqt…hwww @npub14x9…j2qz @npub1y6y…py6w @npub10q7…cmze @npub1san…jgxu @npub1emq…xekg @npub14sz…ur2r @npub1cng…tphv @npub1k9g…l47g @npub1u8a…kffy @npub12ml…mec8 @npub1hjh…50vw @npub1rtc…mlvq

2024-05-25 09:33:09

- reply

This reminds me of Greer's catabolic collapse:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-05-31/catabolic-collapse/
As society gets more complex the cost of maintenance gets higher and higher. With material abundance you can pay higher baseline costs and grow at the same time, but there will be a time when that's no longer possible. Collapse / simplification follows.

2024-05-22 11:42:59

- reply

I admit it can be a very useful tool in confirming one's biases.
My uncle was distrusting of doctors, because people die in a hospital much more often than at home, as he used to say. Eventually he did die in a hospital, confirming his theory.
Incidentally, an early death is what awaits global capitalism as well.

2024-05-22 09:07:38

- reply

Makes sense.
To sum up: you believe capitalism is a necessary condition for maximizing human well-being based on work of economists such as Milton Friedman and following such logic principles as "correlation implies causation".

2024-05-22 08:16:16

- reply

Could you be more specific? What books you've read on the topic that succesfully argue that capitalism, on average, lead to much better outcomes for humanity than anything else we've tried?

2024-05-22 06:25:54

- reply

In that case, what sources do you put your faith in?

2024-05-21 11:17:29

- reply

XKCD has a comic for everything, doesn't it? 😉
https://xkcd.com/552/
But seriously, correlation found through space and time doesn't provide stronger evidence for causation at all. Every morning birds start chirping outside my window and cars start filling up the street, and that also happens all across the world, every day! Doesn't mean cars cause birds to chirp.
What you have to do is to account for other variables. Does your analysis do that?
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/478/775/520/932/501/original/b9854a6fe569707a.png

2024-05-21 08:38:17

- reply

Unfortunately I don't. I'm asking these questions as a hobby. 😁
I'm not even sure there would be much political use of such research. Politics is perfectly content using ideology as a starting point, biophysical reality be damned. That unfortunately includes big research projects like the IPCC that has no problem including nonexistent future technologies in their scenarios.

2024-05-21 06:12:30

- reply

Yes, it is in a way civil engineering (and agricultural) question. It could be reformulated this way:
Assuming a perfect distribution and use of resources, what would be the minimum of resources and energy we would need to support current population levels with what most would regard as basic necessities: food, water, sewage, electricity, housing, healthcare, transport, etc.
That would allow us to establish a baseline for unavoidable ecological destruction.

2024-05-21 03:58:08

- reply

Thank you!

2024-05-21 01:58:41

- reply

Just because it's there doesn't mean it is necessary. It may also be a coincidence of history.
Using your parachute example: where we find people surviving the fall we find they wore clothes.
How do you know capitalism is "the parachute" (the necessary factor), and not "wearing clothes" (coincidental factor)?
Or, in other words: correlation (capitalism and positive outcomes coinciding) doesn't imply causation (capitalism causing these outcomes).

2024-05-21 01:29:40

- reply

I see, thank you for the clarification.
How do you know capitalism is necessary for maximizing human flourishing?

2024-05-21 00:51:44

- reply

So you're saying capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for human flourishing?

2024-05-20 20:24:22

- reply

I would love to explore this topic in more detail.
Do you know of any research that explores this relationship between sufficient technology, well-being and ecological pressures? Not on a macro scale where details are often lost in aggregates and averages, but in micro scale. For example, I wonder if there's any research on intentional communities: what tech they use, what's their standard of living and how big populations they support on how much land and energy inputs.

2024-05-20 17:32:26

- reply

However, my question comes from the desire to understand how the world works. How much of the environmental destruction is an inescapable part of a modern industrial society and how much is "political inefficiency", let's call it.
I'm not even sure if it's possible to separate the biophysical and ideological here! Maybe it isn't, because they're too intertwined? I'd love to know!

2024-05-20 17:31:13

- reply

That much is true, no doubt about it. As an environmental action plan that's definitely enough to get someone started. Just abolish capitalism, no pressure. 😉

2024-05-20 10:55:08

- reply

The exact same thing could be said of technology or access to resources. All necessary factors, but not sufficient ones.
So what is it that convinces you that it is capitalism that is the common/deciding factor here, and not one of the other factors?

2024-05-20 09:54:19

- reply

Is capitalism a common factor though? Aren't there any examples of places that did not adopt capitalism and improved, as well as examples of places that did adopt capitalism and did not improve?

2024-05-20 08:52:14

- reply

Not looking for absolute proof, just trying to understand what analytical framework you use to arrive at your conclusion about capitalism. How do you account for all these differences in circumstances that separate capitalist and other kinds of systems?

2024-05-19 20:59:26

- reply

Yes. Arguably much less damage than maintaining a fossil infrastructure though, right?
OTOH, can we even confidently say that we can produce, distribute, install, maintain and recycle solar panels without fossil fuel inputs?

2024-05-19 20:20:21

In the past, countries used fossil fuels to develop, as these happened to be the energy sources available. Now we have renewables, so we can abandon fossil fuels.
Environmental destruction is not inherent to industrial civilization, but is caused by capitalism. The growth imperative is a feature of capitalism and not part of any unchanging human nature.
By adopting a different economic/political system we can resolve all ecological tensions.
Is this story true? How would I know if it is?

2024-05-19 14:52:54

- reply

Yes, but no two countries in history had the same starting conditions and access to resources and technology. Or was there a country in 1917 that was almost entirely agricultural that just became capitalist and overcame the Soviet Union in outcomes, however defined?

2024-05-19 14:27:17

- reply

I'm not sure. I had this conversation before.
I am curious though: for whatever definition of capitalism and outcomes, how do you establish causality between the two? In other words, how do you know it was capitalism that was the main contributor to these outcomes, and not something else (e.g. technology)?

2024-05-19 14:17:01

- reply

"I do think that history makes it pretty clear that free markets and capitalism*, on average, lead to much better outcomes** for humanity than anything else we've tried."
Now to only define these starred terms, hmmm.

2024-05-18 11:53:22

- reply

Yes. They really operate in two separate markets at once.
One market is their broadband service and here they have monopoly power, so don't need to invest a great deal into it.
The second market is the stock market and here they face strong competition for investors' money, so it makes perfect sense for them to focus on that.

2024-05-18 11:33:50

"""
Russia and China expect to a sign a contract "in the near future" on the Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline, which will carry Russian gas to China, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak was cited as saying by Interfax late on Thursday.
Putin and China's Xi Jinping have pledged a "new era" of strategic partnership on the trip as the Russian leader increasingly turns to China to support his wartime economy.
"""
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-sign-power-siberia-2-gas-pipeline-contract-in-near-future-says-2024-05-17/
#Russia #China #gas #war

2024-05-16 23:17:04

- reply

This short-term stock value over long-term profits is quite an unexpected result for a capitalist system, isn't it?

2024-05-16 21:37:08

- reply

"""
The results of positive climate action are beginning to be felt. It is likely that carbon emissions will peak this year and begin to drop in the following years thanks to a steady move to clean energy.
"""
This is a quote worth saving for reference in the future. Time will tell if indeed they are the "hopium peddlers".

2024-05-16 21:25:10

Ahhh, it finally makes sense. Why Mann is on the anti-doomer crusade. It's all there: how he and Hayhoe are being called "hopium peddlers" or "money-chasers", or how they are being called out for flying. It clearly strikes a nerve:
https://www.sustainableviews.com/the-antidote-to-doom-is-doing-ac97ab67/
It is even more clear when we look at Mann's favorite solution: carbon tax. Without infringing on the average Americans' lifestyle, of course:
https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/110531935600518879
#doomerism #ClimateCrisis #CarbonTax
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/452/781/270/164/315/original/98839853bca26a28.jpg

2024-05-10 14:37:17

Digging into this paper by Sullivan and Hickel, and I am a bit distressed by the way authors misrepresent and distort their sources to fit their political narrative.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169
1/8

2024-05-06 09:01:52

Great, another source of emissions that has been underestimated.
The US obviously tops the charts, but other notable mentions are China, Australia and Norway.
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2024/04/big-data-reveals-true-climate-impact-of-worldwide-air-travel/
Direct link to study: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad3a7d
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateDiary #climate #aviation #USA #China #Australia #Norway

2024-05-05 20:29:15

- reply

Nah, #degrowth isn't a fancy label for the hate of industrial civilization, far from it. Adopting degrowth would mean scaling down production of certain industries, but not deindustrialization per se.
Most of environmentalism is indeed about "solutions" to very specific problems.

2024-05-05 20:14:56

- reply

Strong, true words of Max Wilbert.
Most environmental discussions nowadays are a carbon-measuring contest of this or that technology.
Source: https://www.planetcritical.com/p/bright-green-lies-max-wilbert
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/390/312/773/252/028/original/3a22cc04452add63.png

2024-05-05 20:14:04

"""
The destruction of the planet isn't a mistake, isn't a misunderstanding, isn't an accident. It's largely a deliberate process driven by economics and the material reality of the society we live in. Everything that we produce and consume in an industrial civilization is dependent upon the destruction of the planet.
"""
-- Max Wilbert
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #environmentalism #collapse #ClimateDiary

2024-05-03 12:16:17

- reply

Taiwan is very democratic, is the point. So it's not fair to say that it is "not a democracy, and never was". That's true about the PRC, but not Taiwan.
@npub1twz…8cy0 @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1z5d…4g9v

2024-05-03 11:27:33

- reply

Taiwan is very democratic in comparison:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5096032
They've fought their battle against a totalitarian regime and won.
(there was a good documentary from DW about it, but since then removed from YT: https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/111776662426293263 )
It's unfortunate that now they have to live with an aggresive neighbour constantly threatening an invasion.
@npub1twz…8cy0 @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1z5d…4g9v @npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-05-01 14:39:50

- reply

China is so democratic that it jails anyone trying to make the country more democratic:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Zhiyong
employs censorship and surveillance to prevent people from bottom-up organizing:
https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/111193605258009484
and even Xi himself says that democracy is not suited for current times, because it "requires consensus, and it takes too much time, too much effort to get it together":
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/21/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-democratic-national-committee-fundraiser-3/
@npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 22:15:54

- reply

Depends. In Norway it would be implemented by the government according to the will of its population, given how it's a democratic country. Now ask yourself this: do Norwegians want their government to stop extracting fossil fuels?
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 21:20:09

- reply

When they say they will not phase-out fossil fuels we should believe them and hold them accountable.
Instead, we're doing them a favor by applauding their efforts in deploying "green" technology. Making their job of propping up the status quo that much easier.
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 21:19:22

- reply

BTW this is exactly what China is doing: watering-down any mention of fossil fuel phase-out from climate agreements (which would limit their economic growth), while at the same time pushing for renewable energy targets (that will benefit their economic growth). It's a ruse, a delay strategy.
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 21:18:46

- reply

Right now we're building renewables and EVs and hoping that maybe that will reduce burning of fossils. Meanwhile governments are very open about wanting to continue exploration and extraction.
This is a losing strategy.
As long as we keep pulling fossils from the ground we'll keep burning them. We won't prevent catastrophic climate change this way.
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 21:18:18

- reply

Simple: if you're extracting fossil fuels you need to start phasing down production. Everything starts there and this is what we need to demand.
Not "phase out by some far away date when the politician retires in their beachfront villa" but "phase down production starting today". Announce this and allow everyone downstream to adjust accordingly. Solutions will differ greatly according to circumstance.
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 20:15:17

- reply

"economic models and measures that have achieved some success around the world"
Some success around the world:
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/361/993/834/922/277/original/17d23f9f8421baaa.jpg

2024-04-30 14:03:23

- reply

It's not about whether or not to discard the good in search of the perfect.
It's about whether to do what is necessary to solve the climate crisis (which is to stop extraction and burning of fossil fuels) or to get distracted by the sweet promises of politicians and technocrats.
They are the ones telling us "look how much green tech we're building" while the emissions continue to climb year after year.
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-29 08:21:19

- reply

I really wish this was true...
But in reality:
Norway:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/leave-no-stone-unturned-gas-exploration-norway-tells-industry-2023-12-06/
https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/111114755291488089
China:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-2023-coal-output-hits-record-high-2024-01-17/
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-climate-envoy-says-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-unrealistic-2023-09-22/
@npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:57:59

- reply

Xi's continued fixation on Taiwan, skirmishes on the Indian border and on the South China Sea, the military buildup, support of Russian invasion, etc. all tell me that they operate just like any other state, with the same set of values. Sorry to say, these aren't the green saviors you're looking for.
8/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:57:29

- reply

"On peut regarder la politique de la Chine comme un pari sur ce que va être l’économie du XXIe siècle. (...)"
That's an interesting quote, but I really can't see how China is a model for a "green" future. It is very clear to me that the CCP values economic growth over environmental considerations, and will do anything to keep their grip on society.
7/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:57:01

- reply

What I'm saying is that I wish there was a real world example of a model of development that did not involve burning fossil fuels. A positive vision of the future that some society somewhere decided "yes, that's what we want, so that's what we're doing".
What I see instead are all countries, poor and rich alike, caught up in the fossil fuel death trap.
6/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:56:36

- reply

"all development is inevitably destructive"
No, only the type of development that is currently imagined by pretty much every politician and policy advisor.
5/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:54:20

- reply

"Are you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future..."
I'm not making any arguments about the future.
Remember that this conversation started when I pointed out that it is not true that "China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets, rather than over-consumption". This is a statement about the past and the present, not about the future.
4/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:53:43

- reply

You may also find interesting that humanity is burning more wood that ever in history.
In general, new energy sources don't replace the old ones, but rather add on to the metabolism of our civlization. As can clearly be seen in the case of renewables.
3/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:53:11

- reply

"So what? They were the energy sources available. But things change - just as in the past they changed from wood-burning, etc, to fossil fuels."
Don't trivialize this change. Fossil fuels changed *everything*. Whatever charts you pull up on the history of humanity they start going exponential the moment we figured out how to tap into the energy contained within.
2/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 20:52:44

- reply

"I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting"
China under Mao developed using the Soviet model, and after his death opened up to international trade, incorporating more "western" approach.
In both cases industrialization via fossil fuels was involved, so from the pov of climate - not much of a difference.
It is important to point out that as urbanization and standards of living accelerated, so did fossil fuel use.
1/8
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:18:59

- reply

"This assumes a western-defined idea of what 'development' must be (...)"
This is precisely my point. There is no nation on Earth that follows a different development path. China is definitely not, neither are India or other developing nations. You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of an alternative model. To this day, development = getting richer = using more fossil fuels. I sincerely wish there was a counterexample!
7/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:16:50

- reply

This way of development is not entirely imposed from above (by the CCP) either. People know a better life awaits them in cities, that's why they violate the restrictive hukou system and flock to the cities, even if it means they will get zero support from the state in terms of healthcare or education for their kids, e.g. see https://thediplomat.com/2015/03/chinas-hidden-children/ or https://apnews.com/article/china-migrant-worker-economy-f9dc355c514ffcedf3b79d9d3a840ee6
6/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:16:12

- reply

Point being, Mao's China is hardly a model to be simulated. Neither their results were particularly impressive when compared with countries that adopted a more "western" development model (e.g. South Korea or Taiwan) nor was it "low carbon" in any shape or form. Ecological destruction that always follows industrialization was an inseparable part of the process.
5/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:15:36

- reply

In 1970 life expectancy in China was 56.6 years, 80% were employed in agriculture, only 17% lived in cities, and on avg people got 4.2 years of education.
UK in 1970 had a life expectancy of 71.9 years, 3% of workforce was employed in agriculture, 70% were urbanites and average years of schooling was 8.1.
China achieved the UK's life expectancy levels in 2000, education levels in 2005 while urbanization is <70% to this day.
4/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:14:36

- reply

China under Mao underwent rapid industrialization following the Soviet model and with technical and financial support from the USSR. While the means of this Soviet model were different (five year plans and centralization), the goal was the same as western countries: to match and even surpass their economic output.
3/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:13:53

- reply

Today China's per capita emissions are on par with those of the UK or France, even when accounting for trade, and well above the world's average.
Give it one or two more decades and cumulative emissions of China will surpass that of western Europe, even on a per capita basis.
2/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 16:12:51

- reply

"Adjust for population and you see all the biggest CO2 polluters are in fact the old 'western' countries."
That would simply be a consequence of the western countries being industrialized for longer.
Today there is no fundamental difference between how the US economy operates vs how the Chinese economy operates vs how every developing nation strives to operate.
1/7
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 10:11:15

- reply

Development is exactly the things you mention: roads, bridges, railroads, water and sewage systems, electricity grids, factories, hospitals, etc. and that requires cement and steel and artificial fertilizer and a lot of energy provided by fossil fuels.
Gadgets and fancy cars are a luxury layer on top, but the very base of society depends on fossil fuels.
4/4
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 10:10:29

- reply

"western Europe in the 1960s"
Perhaps that's true when it comes to resource consumption (idk, haven't looked at these numbers), but is definitely not the case from the pov of CO2 emissions. 1960s in western Europe is when emissions per capita were twice as high as today.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&country=FRA~DEU~GBR
These numbers are well above the current world average, so it would be a disaster if everyone wanted to live like that.
3/4
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 10:09:41

- reply

"China (...) succeeded in virtually ending extreme poverty while its exports were still less than 5% of its GDP."
What do you mean? Extreme poverty was still very high when China opened up.
Or did you mean a different metric?
Charts from:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/poverty-explorer?tab=chart&facet=none&country=~CHN&Indicator=Share+in+poverty&Poverty+line=%242.15+per+day%3A+International+Poverty+Line&Household+survey+data+type=Show+data+from+both+income+and+consumption+surveys&Show+breaks+between+less+comparable+surveys=false
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/merchandise-exports-gdp-cepii?time=1968..latest&country=~CHN
2/4
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/348/294/821/054/790/original/b2fa67e09edbf898.jpg
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/348/294/886/264/396/original/a73d8578dd6c237c.jpg

2024-04-28 10:07:41

- reply

"This is the problem with drawing conclusions from a 2021 data snapshot"
I'm not drawing conclusions just from a 2021 data point. I've linked you to a historical chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region
The two lines are never that far apart. The number was 91% in 2021, but you can check other years. In 2014 it was 88% and in 2018 it was 93%. That's how big a share China's territorial emissions are due to their own consumption.
1/4
@npub1vly…wvr0 @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-27 11:43:25

- reply

Yes, I agree with most of the points from your original post.
The common misconception is that "China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets, rather than over-consumption", which I hope I showed is not the case.
The point that China "has been producing them for far less of its history" is moot as well, because half of all world emissions have been emitted in the last 30 years, coinciding with China's development.

2024-04-27 08:16:13

- reply

No problem, I'll explain in detail.
Take a look at this chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~CHN
If you compare territorial vs consumption emissions for the latest data point (2021) you'll get 91%.
When it comes to the cumulative emissions chart, if you switch to relative values, like this:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region
you'll see China stands at 15.07% in 2022.
If you switch to the table view and sort you'll see China in second place, between the US and Russia.

2024-04-27 07:46:35

- reply

It is a common misconception.
91% of CO2 emissions in China are due to domestic consumption and only 9% are embedded in exported products.
In terms of cumulative emissions China is already second place, with 15% of the total CO2 emitted in history.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute

2024-04-26 09:02:36

Amazing that this exists:
https://archive.org/details/MagicTheGathering2010Edition
Abandonware made functional on modern systems by hobbyists and freely available on archive.org.
I remember playing this game a lot in my teens. Installed it a few days ago and I'm hooked again.
#mtg #magicthegathering #videogames
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/336/705/652/466/695/original/b0861e3a8a1fb7eb.png

2024-04-26 06:42:38

- reply

There obviously will be a peak at some point, as fossil fuels are limited.
The real question is: how much will we leave in the ground and how much will we burn. And the answer to that is disheartening. Nobody wants to leave fossils in the ground right now.
[@FantasticalEconomics](https://geekdom.social/@FantasticalEconomics)

2024-04-26 06:39:39

- reply

It's always the same story. We can only call a peak by looking back, many years down the line.
Screenshots from:
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/peak-co2-emissions-2019
and:
https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/336/134/641/004/204/original/041c80f4556c8b40.jpg
https://media.mas.to/media_attachments/files/112/336/134/892/937/598/original/b95827f02e414df0.png

2024-04-25 19:30:58

- reply

That's all our problems distilled, right there: collectively humanity has a really hard time agreeing on things. If we could figure this out we wouldn't need to build a single weapon ever. Alas, we are building more than ever. The doomsday clock is ticking.

2024-04-17 15:58:08

- reply

Price, more than anything, represents current power relations. The price is $100 because that's how much some members of the middle class are willing to pay today, while communities around the factory or future generations literally have no say in the matter.

2024-04-17 15:51:34

- reply

I don't even think price is the main issue here, but rather it's the subjectivity of the value itself.
It's impossible for any one thing to have a value that matches for everyone involved. These boots may be worthless to me (as I wouldn't wear them), worth $100 for a 10yo kid (to show off), worth $10k for the people living near the factory (due to environmental destruction) and worth $1m to future generations (when resources are much more scarce).

2024-04-17 15:31:25

- reply

Boots certainly help a person move about, and the potato-chip-holster variety may serve purposes of belonging and community building. It's easy to imagine people that bought them socializing and joking thanks to these boots. What I find silly and wasteful may be a valid form of self-expression and socialization to somebody else.
In other words, whatever frame we use, these boots have value, and it's not due to their price.

2024-04-17 14:23:26

- reply

Noooo, you did not quote the laughing emoji. You can't respond seriously to a sarcastic remark, it's forbidden. 😉
«One doesn't need a “better notion” of value to realize that price is a horribly flawed measure of value.»
Yes, but what _would_ be a better measure?

2024-04-17 13:18:35

- reply

You clearly don't have entrepreneurial spirit! 😉 Who are you to say that this is not the best use of resources? If someone makes it and someone buys it then it's clearly a good use. 😄
The holster crocs are already sold out, a day after release. 🤷 People take pleasure in many things I find stupid or off-putting, but outright banning these things doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
What would be a better notion of "value" in your opinion?

2024-04-17 08:35:33

- reply

Yep, that's the right answer. The problem arises when production is combined with marketing (which is pretty much always nowadays). Then it's harder to argue a product serves a genuine need rather than a manufactured one.

2024-04-04 21:44:24

- reply

Exactly there lays the divide: between Michael Mann and James Hansen.
One insists that there is still time to limit warming to 1.5C and doesn't pass any opportunity to criticize "doomerism", while applauding success of policies like the IRA.
The other calls this approach "denial" and current policies as based purely on wishful thinking: https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf

2024-04-04 18:41:02

- reply

It's not that doomerism is positive, but going after it seems pretty pointless, in my opinion. Those are the people that lost hope. Instead of judging and attacking them, why not spend that energy on those that insist on extracting and burning fossil fuels?
Doing something effective and giving people hope sounds like a much better idea than scapegoating those that lost that hope.

2024-04-04 18:11:26

- reply

I had a hunch it was Mann after reading the first few words. I must admit going after doomers is a pretty weird hill to die on...