You are just validating my point with that "per capita" narrative.
The point is simple: you want to pretend your are saving the planet by allowing China and India to increase their emissions, more than USA and EU will ever be able to cut them (even if they cut it to zero).
Explain how that can possible save the planet please.
Climate action, measuring exactly this, has China as doing "OK" and India as doing "great" when their comulative projected ”increase" by 2030 will be similar than all present emissions by USA and EU.
I know I will be downvoted for stating a fact but I agree with you.
The gist of the so called environmentalists is (factually, these really are their proposals when you look at their numbers): ok USA and EU, you have to urgently stop your emissions, even if that means total economic breakdown. China and specially India, it's ok you can continue your emissions, and increase then by even more than the all 1st world will cut theirs (even if they cut it to 0), that's just fine since your are entitled to it because you didn't do it in the past.
End result: a planet with even more emissions than today and a destroyed economy in the western world.
But somehow, this will save the planet according to people pushing this catastrophic scenario.
Sorry no, these people aren't pushing major climate action to save the planet, they are doing it because they think it's hip to push this idea that the Western way of life should be destroyed to give way to their political ideology.
I am also old enough to remember how the Ozone Layer would doom us all and that even if we stopped all CFC emission immediately, it would still take 4 centuries to recover.
Reality: Even with China still misbehaving about CFCs emissions, the Ozone Layer already recovered quite a bit and it's set to be fully healed by 2060.
But well, on the bright side, at least that time, ALL nations comited to stop using CFCs. This time, the idea is: stop all emissions in the western world, and allow Asia to keep increasing theirs.
And add the problem with plastics with the fact that this marketing stunt with pyramidal tea bags, occupies about 3x more volume and as such take 3x more resources to store and transport than traditional tea bags.
There is no going back about cleaning plastics by traditional methods now unfortunately.
The only real solution I see is if we bio-engineer some bacteria/microorganism capable of decomposing it and release it in the environment. It might be a danregous proposition, but (expect the even more advanced and potentially dangerous proposition of nanites) I can't see any other way of getting rid of all the plastic we already put into the environment even if we stop producing it.
I don't like Trump, he is mostly wrong, but pretending absolutely everything he says is wrong, is a dangerous proposition.
I still think these wind farms are vastly positive, but we should recognize the problem with bird populations, and find clever ways to mitigate it, instead of putting the question aside just because "the bad orange men" said this was happening.
> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s.
So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist.
> You want them to die because of the choices their parents made.
Funny thing to say, since you want the West to pay for the choices our grandfathers made and descend into deprivation, so that the rest of the world can go on polluting even more.
Here is the thing, people with your discourse aren't interested in saving the planet but into forcing your ideological agenda - which is got nothing to do with environmentalism but with your personal concepts of morality - upon the rest of us under the threat of environmental catastrophe. And the worst part of it? It does nothing to tackle climate change.
P.S.: > If you excuse me, I'm going to go take a shower. I honestly can't believe I'm having this conversation on HN.
Go easy on that shower, it's a big toll on the environment and, after all, you just spent the last 24h telling us all how those resources actually should belong to be used by people in India and not selfishly by me or by you.
When is enough just enough? Do the costumers really care about reducing a further 1mm from the thickness of a laptop sacrificing: keyboard usability, battery life and number of ports?
> They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance.
We already established those aren't the same circumstances at all:
- 1st: we didn't have even 1/4 of the Indian population density when we were having the same birthrates.
- 2nd: When global warming became clear and urgent action was needed, we started reducing our emissions while India during that time already increased them by 400%, and is going to increase them by another 100% in the next decade.
It's not by keep repeating the same lie that you are going to make it a reality.
It's not your racism that has you stating that someone in a country with a very good track record when it comes to CO2 emissions (and a number of other environmental aspects) should stop having children, so that someone in a overly populated country, with an appalling record when it comes to all kinds of pollution can have even more children?
If it's not racism from your part that makes you ask for that, than you should clarify what it is. But one thing is for certain, it's not environmentalism for sure.
> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free?
No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't follow the same principle.
As a fact, India's CO2 emissions per unit area are almost the same as EU. We are using the same share of ecological resources (assuming roughly they are equivalent on average per area), so there is nothing to give or to take from both sides.
P.S.: A family in USA in the 60's, 1st: didn't had any idea that there was such thing as a catastrophic global warming incoming, 2nd: had a 4x smaller population density than India has today. But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that Earth's resources magically increase anytime someone decides to have a new child, so that you can tell yourself we are all entitles to the same amount of resources, no matter the size of our immediate family.
> But if you are from a country that has high per-capita emissions (I'm assuming you are from one) then your country is much more responsible for the problem.
It's interesting that you expect someone in a country that has 1 brother and 2 children and 4x times more natural resources per capita (our population density is 1/4 of a India's), to enjoy the same level of life of someone in India that has 4 brothers and 3 children.
2. India will actually be one of the first countries to deeply suffer from an increase in temperature.
> Guess why that happened? Because of illiteracy due to poverty - because of your colonising ancestors.
Mugal empire reaps the territory for over 400 years, nobody bats an eye. British are there for 90 years... suddenly everything is their fault, even if India continues with their totally backward ways 70 years after the British left them to rule themselves as they see fit.
P.S.: I don't know why you continue to wave the anti USA flag. I have nothing to do with the USA (or UK for that matter). So sad.
We are at those levels for almost 50 years now in "the west". Guess you are conveniently disregarding the mess you created over this last half century(and long before when the growth in India was 6 children per couple while in the USA it was 3).
Here is a novel idea for you: you use the resources available by your territory as you see fit as long as you don't destroy the rest of the planet for us. If you choose to do it with double your population or half your population, is solely your sovereign choice and we have nothing to say about it. The same way you shouldn't have anything to say about how we use our resources with our - in check - population where people - for a very long time now - mostly think twice about if they can actually support a child with the resources available (natural or economic) before having it.
What Earth does care about, is when you decide that's a good idea to have on average more than 4 children per couple over the last 2 generations in India [1] instead of only 2 or even less children per couple like in USA or the EU [2].
Every country has a set of natural resources at its disposal. It should manage and cherish those resources and not overtax them. If a country decides it's a good idea to perpetually grow their population when all they have are the same set of natural resources available, then well, the onus is on them to figure out how to do it without destroying everything.
The point is simple: you want to pretend your are saving the planet by allowing China and India to increase their emissions, more than USA and EU will ever be able to cut them (even if they cut it to zero).
Explain how that can possible save the planet please.