Thank you for following me. I try to post about climate solutions that can be preemptively implemented by ordinary citizens and how much they can reduce global warming without waiting for their governments to act. For example:
If we, the people, reduced our consumption of animal-based foods by 75% we would reduce worldwide GHG emissions by 15%. That is 34% more than all the greenhouse gas emissions from the United States (11.2%) in 2022. And we can do that now, without asking anyone!
Please boost so more people can find out just how important citizen participation can is.
Take beef for example (see attached image): So, think about all those emissions that would be eliminated if we reduced our consumption of beef by 75%! And that doesn’t include the 26% reduction in water consumption, the 19% of land made available for other uses, and that instead of 95% cattle growth there would be a 75% reduction in the world’s cattle.
But even more than that, we would be eliminating greenhouse gases that are far worse than carbon dioxide. The below figure shows that methane (CH4 - 130 times more potent than CO2) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O - 300 times more potent than CO2) are highly concentrated in animal agriculture.
Don’t believe people can stop global warming? Then you should read my e-book https://www.amazon.com/PLANET-TOO-HOT-eco-conscious-mitigating-ebook/dp/B0CW1FNVJQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MEOMQ769O9SW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.-2TsW47gxmhdkZleii4jVL6wtLRJxTx7eq4ZK-PXxfiniTAqJ8IGawdElgMdndGRWYmyH7eKqlyPMf_AnSe9tQSmq9GhI30xqDfBhuyv1rylji83vi-mEBIe_fgKLGe_5sBwUbEBTWGEoQqATzBt2cv74S8-SVqWvm1eAZqdZkX9boQxwODlbkjPBtT4I33gfQspmAtGS6wNdij0EfS4upgHWSW48ZOOAs2c03DqLLw.S32_IljU-izAqRRwA2fRWJgwev1NQPe2EXS64370gdY&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+planet+is+too&qid=1710699062&s=digital-text&sprefix=%2Cdigital-text%2C166&sr=1-1 , find out for yourself how eco-conscious citizens can cool the planet by themselves and see my calculations below.
According to research published in Nature Food, 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food production, "of which 57% corresponds to the production of animal-based food," including livestock feed… https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00358-x.epdf
UN Emissions Gap Report says “Global GHG emissions increased by 1.2 per cent from 2021 to 2022 to reach a new record of 57.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e)…” https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43923/EGR2023_ESEN.pdf?sequence=10 …
So, if 35% of 57.4 gtons = 20.9gtons, & 57% of 20.9 = 11.45 gtons, then animal-based foods are, 11.45gtons ÷ 57.4 gtons = 20% of all GHG emissions.
GeofCox
in reply to Bill Orcutt • • •Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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
Cumulative CO₂ emissions by world region
Our World in DataGeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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.
Cumulative CO₂ emissions by world region
Our World in DataGeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •Take a look at my post again. It makes a very simple point: that it's misleading to compare countries' emissions without taking into account their relative size, history, and the extent to which their emissions are related to over-consumption elsewhere.
I don't see how this is 'a common misconception'.
The 'common misconception' is surely the opposite view: that developed countries with a long history of polluting activities and relatively small populations, but with very damaging lifestyles, can justify their own inaction on the environment by pointing the finger at China (or India, etc) because they are now also becoming big polluters.
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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.
Bread and Circuses
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •GeofCox
in reply to Bread and Circuses • • •Also, China's recent growth has been to a large extent built on exports, even when it is not directly attributable to them now.
This is the problem with drawing conclusions from a 2021 data snapshot - when China's exports were artificially suppressed by the pandemic. In the early 2000s China was exporting a third - sometimes more - of it's entire production.
Also note the cumulative emissions figures used by Our World in Data do not include traded goods - so they will be distorted in favour of the 'western' world.
To me, one of the most interesting things about the development of China is not the recent period when it has followed a more western-style 'development' path, but that it succeeded in virtually ending extreme poverty while it's exports were still less than 5% of its GDP.
This relates to the subsequent discussion in the thread - @bouriquet - about the 'western' versus other models of development. I think we make a mistake if we assume aspects of
... Show more...Also, China's recent growth has been to a large extent built on exports, even when it is not directly attributable to them now.
This is the problem with drawing conclusions from a 2021 data snapshot - when China's exports were artificially suppressed by the pandemic. In the early 2000s China was exporting a third - sometimes more - of it's entire production.
Also note the cumulative emissions figures used by Our World in Data do not include traded goods - so they will be distorted in favour of the 'western' world.
To me, one of the most interesting things about the development of China is not the recent period when it has followed a more western-style 'development' path, but that it succeeded in virtually ending extreme poverty while it's exports were still less than 5% of its GDP.
This relates to the subsequent discussion in the thread - @bouriquet - about the 'western' versus other models of development. I think we make a mistake if we assume aspects of highly developed economies that make life good - enough food, communications, arts, universal education, healthcare, water, sewerage, power, etc - have to be accompanied by destructive over-consumption - the latest gadget or fancy car or fast food or fashion.
I read somewhere (but now can't find it) that a sustainable level of resources consumption would imply living standards across the world like those in western Europe in the 1960s. Well I just about remember the 1960s in the UK, although I was only a small boy, in a relatively poor working-class household - but life was good, actually in most ways better than the stressful lives of the young now.
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Cumulative CO₂ emissions by world region
Our World in DataJack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Poverty Data Explorer
Our World in DataJack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Per capita CO₂ emissions
Our World in DataJack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
GeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •Well, I think you're looking at the date 'through western eyes'. I saw this earlier when you said: "switch to the table view and you'll see China in second place, between the US and Russia". Not so - because China is much bigger. Adjust for population and you see all the biggest CO2 polluters are in fact the old 'western' countries.
It's true, obviously, that to date development has been associated with fossil fuel use - but there's a huge trap - which I think you're in danger of falling into - of saying the development model the west used is the only one, and the measures of success the west uses are the only ones.
Indeed, if you adopt measures like GDP it does appear that China eradicated 'poverty' mainly by adopting (to some extent - but that's another discussion) a 'western' approach - but that is flawed, as Sullivan & Hickel show here - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169 . By the kind of real-life metrics
... Show more...Well, I think you're looking at the date 'through western eyes'. I saw this earlier when you said: "switch to the table view and you'll see China in second place, between the US and Russia". Not so - because China is much bigger. Adjust for population and you see all the biggest CO2 polluters are in fact the old 'western' countries.
It's true, obviously, that to date development has been associated with fossil fuel use - but there's a huge trap - which I think you're in danger of falling into - of saying the development model the west used is the only one, and the measures of success the west uses are the only ones.
Indeed, if you adopt measures like GDP it does appear that China eradicated 'poverty' mainly by adopting (to some extent - but that's another discussion) a 'western' approach - but that is flawed, as Sullivan & Hickel show here - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169 . By the kind of real-life metrics Sullivan & Hickel use, such as longevity, the biggest advances were earlier. In the 1950s, China’s people lived 3 years less than the world average; by 1970s, they lived 5 years longer than the world average.
There's a common view that says 'there's no point taking action on climate-ecological breakdown unless China, India, etc stop development'. This assumes a western-defined idea of what 'development' must be, and that everywhere must go through the same historical processes, such as the fossil fuel stage, that brought us to precisely the current disastrous pass. I don't believe this. Instead we should be holding up the way 'the west' developed - and indeed many aspects of of the way it lives now - precisely as examples of what NOT to do.
@breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
China’s Hidden Children
Stephanie Gordon (The Diplomat)Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
GeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, you seem to be arguing (in different posts) both that China has 'developed' by following the western 'international trade' model (which it has, over the last 2 or 3 decades), but also (previously) by following a western model when it wasn't engaged in much international trade !
It's true in broad-brush terms, of course - but so obvious that it's a truism - that in the past couple of centuries or so all development models have increased the use of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions. 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.
Are you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future is that of the extreme right: all development is inevitably destructive, so let it rip while the super-rich retire to their gated communities and private islands - or forcibly halt development in currently 'poorer' countries to preserve the rich (which of course would require the same kind of a
... Show more...I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, you seem to be arguing (in different posts) both that China has 'developed' by following the western 'international trade' model (which it has, over the last 2 or 3 decades), but also (previously) by following a western model when it wasn't engaged in much international trade !
It's true in broad-brush terms, of course - but so obvious that it's a truism - that in the past couple of centuries or so all development models have increased the use of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions. 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.
Are you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future is that of the extreme right: all development is inevitably destructive, so let it rip while the super-rich retire to their gated communities and private islands - or forcibly halt development in currently 'poorer' countries to preserve the rich (which of course would require the same kind of armed oppression as the bunkers) ?
Of course those are possible futures - but so (I believe) are futures following different development models. By chance, I was just reading this interview with one of the authors of a new book (Comment bifurquer - les principes de la planification écologique) which ends with:
"On peut regarder la politique de la Chine comme un pari sur ce que va être l’économie du XXIe siècle. Ils ont pris de l’avance dans toute une série de productions vertes en se disant, « oui on subventionne massivement, oui, ça nous coûte cher aujourd’hui et on prend des risques, mais finalement, on est en train de développer les technologies de demain »."
https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/cedric-durand-ny-a-de-chemin-credible-vers-un-capitalisme-res/00110176
@breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Cédric Durand : « Il n’y a pas de chemin crédible vers un capitalisme respectant la nature »
Christian Chavagneux (Alternatives Economiques)Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •"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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
@GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
GeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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
... Show more...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'?
@breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
KarunaX
in reply to GeofCox • • •Jack of all trades
in reply to KarunaX • • •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/
@KarunaX @GeofCox @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades (@jackofalltrades@mas.to)
mas.toKarunaX
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •Two countries in Europe are powered by 100% renewable energy as wind capacity soars
Rosie Frost (Euronews.com)Runyan50
in reply to KarunaX • • •GeofCox
in reply to Runyan50 • • •I don't think anybody here is in favour of autocracy, are they?
The discussion is not about political arrangements - with regard to those, Norway is entirely different from China.
I think I do see, from @jackofalltrades 's last posts, the real point of difference though:
It's about whether or not we discard the good in search of the perfect.
This is very clear, for example, in the statement that "it doesn't really matter that Norway is attempting to replace oil&gas use domestically".
This is identical to the common climate-change-denial argument that 'there's no point in us taking action because x isn't, and they produce more emissions.'
It comes down to the difference between those that want to do what we can - limited though it might be - and those that think there's no point doing anything because we can't do everything.
@KarunaX @jackofalltrades @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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.
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Runyan50
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •GeofCox
in reply to Runyan50 • • •Again - these posts confirm my view. There's no disagreement I can see in this thread about what needs to be done (and therefore no need to soapbox about that here). The disagreement is about how necessary changes can actually be achieved. One side is advocating looking at economic models and measures that have achieved some success around the world - or there's evidence they are capable of achieving some - so that they can be promoted to governments, etc, as real, workable solutions now; and the other side is saying... what? - as far as I can make out: there are no successes to learn from anywhere, only the least developed countries are ok, even individual actions like installing a heat pump instead of a fossil fuel boiler are pointless, nothing is of any use (except, presumably, an immediate and complete change to the ideal).
To me, it feels like the old left reform-or-revolution division, which I thought was long ago settled in favour of reform?
@KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •"economic models and measures that have achieved some success around the world"
Some success around the world:
GeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •So what's the solution?
(And I don't mean what is the end result to aim at - I don't think anybody here disagrees about that - I mean the actual policies or other practical measures, and the powers to implement them, that we need to get there.)
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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.
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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.
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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.
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •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.
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
GeofCox
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •But you're still talking about what 'needs' to happen. We all know that. But that's an avoidance, not a response to my question to you - which is about who is going to plan and implement (for example) the phasing out of fossil fuels - and how are they going to do it? And manage the job losses, and all the other knock-on effects...
(And incidentally I think fossil fuels are just one aspect of a much bigger crisis - which is why I generally use the description 'climate-ecological breakdown', not just 'climate change'.)
@Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to GeofCox • • •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?
@GeofCox @Runyan50 @KarunaX @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
KarunaX
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •Jack of all trades
in reply to KarunaX • • •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/
@KarunaX @GeofCox @Runyan50 @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Remarks by President Biden at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser | The White House
The White HouseKarunaX
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •skua
in reply to KarunaX • • •Really hard to believe what you write about this.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/19/china-allow-commemorations-white-paper-protests
China: Allow Commemorations of ‘White Paper’ Protests
Human Rights WatchKarunaX
in reply to skua • • •I note #US Human Rights Watch lacks credibility re China, being largely funded by a list of Sinophobic, neo-lib warmongers on the planet, including George Soros' Open Society Foundation.
Szczurola D520
in reply to KarunaX • • •Do you remember the factory workers strike in Qindong? Xianmen? The police actually beating people into submission? Cubic meters of tear gas launched, just because of a simple walk down the town with banners?
You can't be serious, China is not a democracy, and never was. Neither continental, nor Taiwan.
Why are you appeasing a greedy, totalitarian capitalist regime?
@skua @jackofalltrades @GeofCox @Runyan50 @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Szczurola D520 • • •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.
@rato @KarunaX @skua @GeofCox @Runyan50 @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades (@jackofalltrades@mas.to)
mas.tom@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull: likes this.
Szczurola D520
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •I mean, the Republic of China is definitely more democratic than Continental China, but the bar isn't high.
@KarunaX @skua @GeofCox @Runyan50 @breadandcircuses @WBOrcutt @RustyBertrand @bouriquet
Jack of all trades
in reply to Szczurola D520 • • •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.
@rato @KarunaX @skua
m@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull:
in reply to Jack of all trades • • •And yet the “democracy-protecting west” is kind of prepared to sacrifice the functional democracy of Taiwan because…well, temporary profits.
Otherwise they would all recognize Taiwan as the country it is, and has been, for the last 40 years. China wouldn’t really be able to stop trading with everyone at the same time. One at a time though…
@rato @KarunaX @skua
KarunaX
in reply to m@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull: • • •1. The West doesn't "protect democracy" anywhere.
2. #Taiwan is not a country, it is a province of #China.
Note that over 90% of Taiwanese are ethnic Han, & speak the same language as the mainland, have family in both places, often visit / study / travel /work in the mainland. Yes, there is a small minority of left overs from China's civil war who have never forgiven the mainland. Yes, there are US funded individuals and organisations in that minority.
m@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull:
in reply to KarunaX • • •Ah. The “Tell me you’re paid by China without telling me you are paid by China“-person. Great.
@jackofalltrades @skua @rato
KarunaX
in reply to m@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull: • • •Ah, "paid by China" - the old fallback position for those lacking the intellect to examine events critically. Resorting to ad hominem, the favoured tactic of dickheads and trolls.
m@thias.hellqui.st :verified-skull:
in reply to KarunaX • • •You Sir are a master of online discussions. The clarity and fact-fulness, combined with your poignant style which through repetition hammers your views in to the gaps in your opponents flawed opinions, clearly sets you apart as a shining beacon in the otherwise very dark night. You have taught the rest of us so much, a gift of knowledge we will be hard-pressed - nay, incapable of paying back. The rest of us can only strive and try in vain to become as enlightened as yourself good Sir. 愿你的奶牛在屠宰前自由漫步. 现在再见.
@jackofalltrades @skua @rato