General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow much impact can we have on Climate Change
if countries like India and China do nothing?
I'd honestly like to see an outline of what needs to be done to avert disaster. A realistic one that recognizes we can't significantly move off of fossil fuels in foreseeable future, but will significantly lower levels that are sufficient to avoid the coming disaster.
We need a comprehensive global plan that science can demonstrate will make an appreciable impact. I've yet to see one. If anyone can post a link to the proposed solution, I would love to see it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
As we take coal plants offline, the Asian continent is adding coal plants at an alarming rate with plans for up to 1,200 new plants for their power requirements. At some point it has to be a global effort. CO2 doesn't just magically stop at our borders.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Each government acting in its own interest. No wonder nothing ever really gets done.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It's only going to get worse, you're right.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)..the only question now is how to survive in the 'new' earth's climate...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Doomsday Preppers is saying, "Whose crazy now!" (including the misuse of "whose" for the contraction "who's"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)laws. One more reason to stop off shoring and the leak of jobs from our shores. No to TPP and get rid of the other trade agreements as well.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I think conservation is where we can make a difference, where we live and incrementaly around the world. It is not just industry but how many people globally who drive cars as a regular fixture of their lives run their AC as soon as they have the first warm day? A small example, I know. I never run the AC in my car, even in summer for several reason including I love driving with the windows down. I drive very little, only to and from work and as needed for groceries. So, general human behavior and attitudes would have to also be greatly changed in addition to industry around the world. We are all responsible for climate change, how do you get every earthling to accept that?
B2G
(9,766 posts)If the US reduced its emissions to nothing (not even an remotely feasible), how much impact would it make in the long term if Asian countries is building carbon plants and a hugely accelerated rate?
They're just cancelling out anything we potentally do...and in fact most likely raising the emission rates from what they are currently.
Yet we're going to throw trillions of dollars at a problem that can't be fixed anyway?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)It is like spinning your wheels on a global scale.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)We have the money and ability if we would just get it done.
B2G
(9,766 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... Problem solved. Give me a hard one.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)The people with money don't give a damn. Our government is trillions in debt and the most of the wealthy would rather the world end than be taxed for the good of humanity. Business interests have too much power. Switching to green renewable energy can be done, but the greed of those that stand in the way is almost an insurmountable obstacle.
mn9driver
(4,424 posts)By that time, CO2 levels will be high enough to pretty much guarantee temperatures that will make growing most crops impossible, sea level rise much greater than anything predicted so far, and many parts of the world will simply become uninhabitable due to heat spikes.
A common theme among the denierbots is that climate change is a plot and a hoax to impose one-world government. They are wrong about the plot/hoax thing, but correct that no real controls on carbon emissions can happen without a real change in world politics.
In several hundred years, most of the world is not going to be a fun place to live.
B2G
(9,766 posts)why aren't we spending our time and money now planning to adapt to it rather than prevent it?
mn9driver
(4,424 posts)Adaptation is always reactive.
And I have no doubt it will cost a great deal more money, achieve poorer results and cause a lot more general misery and death than if we just took care of the problem right now, by drastically and aggressively cutting global carbon emissions.
But that isn't happening.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)They're called "preppers" and we make fun of them.
Why don't we do it as a nation? The cost. Most people would want someone else to pay for it.
And I agree with you completely.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It's also how much we use, and how much we do with it. That comes into play when talking about any theoretically limitless energy we may stumble upon. Human need, want, desire, and imagination with access to limitless energy? Green because that's how we've defined it? We have no idea what problems we could cause. We might solve a few, but everything has at least two sides to it.
It's a road we've built(roads being one of the worst things we've managed to do, environmentally speaking) and have been traveling down for a long time. Thousands upon thousands of years of history, momentum, and complexity. We can't stop what we've been doing, but we can't continue doing it either. There's no single solution. No single problem.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)(because carbon rationing would never be accepted by rich countries like the USA - no US politician would accept a world in which Americans cannot produce more CO2 than Chinese - the USA will demand the right to pay for the pollution).
If the USA cut its per capita CO2 production to the Chinese (or EU - they're about the same) level, that would cut world emissions by about 8%. If China, and everyone else, also had the same carbon tax, then the countries which produce goods with the least CO2 emissions (eg those with large renewable energy resources, or efficient manufacturing processes) would get the growth in industry - not just China with its cheap labour.
And you should probably stop trying to bring India into this - the Indian emissions for the whole country are still under half of the American ones. Per capita, they're about one eighth of the American rate.
B2G
(9,766 posts)we need to get a whole lot of other countries to play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)the emissions from a whole country, not per capita. Here's the table you should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2012_emissions_estimates
China 9,860,000
United States 5,190,000
India 1,970,000
Russia 1,770,000
Japan 1,320,000
International transport 1,060,000
...
The source for that is 'EDGAR'. Put the EU27 countries (pre-Croatia) together, and they're at 3,740,000. But, yes, you'd need China, the USA and the EU at least, and probably the whole G20 (which would cover not only the major current emitters, but also those with large enough populations that they could be major emitters if industry tried to relocate to them).
B2G
(9,766 posts)"Moments after releasing a report on the impact of climate change in the US, the White House has said it is essential that countries with high carbon emission, such as India and China, be responsible in addressing this major challenge."
And the list I linked to WAS per capita.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/americas/us-reminds-india-and-china-to-take-responsibility-for-high-carbon-emission/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)so I gave you a better list.
Yes, the White House talked about China too; but not actually India - that was in the question put to them, but not explicitly in the answer:
Q You have cited substantial U.S. advances in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but what good is that if you don’t get reductions from China and India?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I guess two answers to that question. It’s no good at all if you don’t believe that climate change is real, so that’s where you have to start. But on the second point, it is absolutely essential that nations that produce high levels of carbon emissions be responsible in addressing this challenge. And that is something that we as a nation, at the level of President and below that level, discuss regularly with the Chinese and other nations that are producing increasing amounts of carbon emissions. Because your point is well taken that this has to be something that we address together with other nations around the world, and that’s the approach we’ve taken.
It still is additionally very valuable to our national security interests to reduce our dependence on imports of energy. It is absolutely in our national security interests and energy interests to diversify our sources of energy. And that is why, as I noted earlier, approaching this as a whole as opposed to addressing each piece of it is essential to improving both our preparation for the impacts of climate change and enhancing our capacity to actually mitigate the damage that climate change can cause.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/06/daily-press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-050614
'Wendell' is, I suspect, Wendell Goler, the Fox News senior White House correspondent. You might want to think if you're happy with using the same spin that Fox News does. India's current emissions are 5.7% of world total. If they 'do nothing', they won't be a major problem. If they were to industrialize heavily, they could become a problem.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Not so much for realistic solutions around here, huh?
I've just finished reading the whole National Climate Assessment. It's a real downer. It comes up with some response strategies, but I am not optimistic about seeing them adopted. My 65 years of observing the world makes me pretty cynical.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If you read this thread you will have seen the adults crapping out and saying, basically, fuck the climate.
Basically, they are saying: we got ours, too bad for you. We ain't gonna do jack. Well, we will keep pumping co2 out from the US which is to date the main culprit for global warming, and keep buying Chinese stuff by the boat loads.
I would apologize for us old fart mass consumers but it wouldn't do any good. So i'll just say sorry and leave it at that, ok?
flvegan
(64,407 posts)We won't, but we could. For some reason "STEAK!" and "OMG, BACON" trumps climate change in Moronville.
But then, who lives in Moronville, right?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Probably the most important thing we could do is quit flying jets hither and non. But we won't. It's just too important; this flying.
But the most impact we have on the atmosphere, besides nukes blowing up, is the one where we dump tons of burned fuel 30,000 feet up where it can do its best work holding the heat.
On the ground there are many ways co2 is absorbed. At 30,000 feet there is no way. In fact you can trace warming right along side airplane travel on a graph.
You think we idiots would stop that, eh? Nope. Too important to keep flying.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I would love to see that on a graph.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Also china and India aren't doing nothing. China is number one in investment in renewable energy and india is almost equal to Canada.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-lags-behind-china-in-renewables-investments-17257
