COP26: All talk or some real action on climate change?
- Thread starter Banderill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
They are, but the per-capita carbon footprint is low. I think it’s not unreasonable to cut them a little slack. When the west reaches a similar level then we’re in a far better position to point fingers. Getting any commitment from China is a positive.
Dissapointing, but real politik.
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
And how would you persuade them otherwise?
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
But... does the mechanisms which cause temperature rise / climate change, recognise that distinction ie, do they (that mechanisms) decide, I will not produce a temperature rise because those nice folk in in wherever may be putting x million tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, but, it is less per head, than those naughty westerners?
mudsticks
Squire
'Naughty' westerners caused and profitted from most of the climate change.
Even at the last round of COP We committed finances to making good some of the damage done to less developed nations, and towards helping them transition to lower carbon, and more climate change resilient economies.
We haven't even lived up to that first round of aid yet.
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
No it doesn’t, but it’s hard to point fingers at those for whom having electricity light, cooker, tv and maybe a bicycle is a luxury when we drive our 4X4s, have households full of electric consumer appliances, buy luxury goods, take cheap flights and eat more meat and dairy than is good for us….
You and me are the polluters and as Mudders says, we’ve already done the damage. We are the problem that needs to be solved and lead the way….
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
You can't lead the way of you have no idea where you are going, that sums it all up.
Cirrus
Active Member
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
I think it’s pretty clear where we need to go. We have the means. What we lack is the will….
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Agreed.
But...
if the primary objective is to "atone for our sins, past and present", then, I agree, let the less developed Nations pollute, and, require us to reduce our consumption and emissions
if the primary objective is to reduce global emissions, and, hopefully halt climate change, and, if we are indeed reaching the point of no return, then, surely, the approach has to be to go for the low hanging fruit, and/or to follow the old 80/20 rule by tackling the (absolute) big emissions as targets? (wherever and what ever they may be).
Last edited:
Rusty Nails
Country Member
I agree.
In the words of that over-used modern phrase " we are where we are".
The primary aim is to minimise the negative impact of climate change so we have to look at where we go from here. That requires action by leaders of countries not by any non-existent world authority.
Wealthy countries have a moral and scientific duty to use their wealth to help the poorer countries that have not benefited from the use of fossil fuels to mitigate the problems caused by climate change, and by wealthy countries I include not just the early users but those countries that have come late to the fossil fuel extravaganza, and are now the major polluters in overall, if not per capita, terms.
We are constantly told we are running, or have even run out, of time to avoid disaster, and if so then all countries have to bite the bullet and not just score points with the old "you started it" argument and kick action into the long grass while temperatures continue to rise.
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
IF, the coal is to be used as coking coal for UK steel manufacture, then there is still an argument (including an environmental one) for opening it. The alternative is to keep inporting it which is hardly carbon neutral….
newfhouse
pleb
Is that the only alternative?
