Normal Island

[Ian H]

I wasn’t discussing “fair”, I was discussing “effective”.

It's less likely to be effective if it doesn't appear to be fair.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's less likely to be effective if it doesn't appear to be fair.

Yes, well, two of the biggest emitters are bastions of fairness, as I understand it.

 

[Ian H]

Yes, well, two of the biggest emitters are bastions of fairness, as I understand it.

Their political systems are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes, well, two of the biggest emitters are bastions of fairness, as I understand it.

The Chinese Communist Party is simply misunderstood, as is that nice Mr Putin.

We should, of course, add Uncle Sam to the list, those inscrutable Japanese, and our former colonial friends from south Asia.

 

[Ian H]

The Chinese Communist Party is simply misunderstood, as is that nice Mr Putin.

We should, of course, add Uncle Sam to the list, those inscrutable Japanese, and our former colonial friends from south Asia.

If you say so.

 

[mudsticks]

I notice that we have now switched the terminology to “dirty”, instead of “emissions”.

Polluting something with emissions is dirty, is it not.?

You seem to approve people who prefer using 'basic' language.

So there you have some.

 

[BoldonLad]

Polluting something with emissions is dirty, is it not.?

You seem to approve people who prefer using 'basic' language.

So there you have some.

I did not say it was desirable. I, obviously mistakenly, thought we were discussing climate change and climate changing emissions, but, if you wish to extend it to single use plastics, and, other forms of waste, plus, pollution of water courses, deforestation, etc etc (all of which I think are undesirable) then, so be it.

 

[mudsticks]

I did not say it was desirable. I, obviously mistakenly, thought we were discussing climate change and climate changing emissions, but, if you wish to extend it to single use plastics, and, other forms of waste, plus, pollution of water courses, deforestation, etc etc (all of which I think are undesirable) then, so be it.

What on earth are you talking about, who said anything about plastics??

Polluting anything with anything makes it dirtier.

Greenhouse gases are pollution.

 

[BoldonLad]

What on earth are you talking about, who said anything about plastics??

Polluting anything with anything makes it dirtier.

Greenhouse gases are pollution.

All true

 

[mudsticks]

All true

So why are you going on about plastics etc.?

It seems that here, as on another thread that you just wade in with inanities, and no idea of what is actually being discussed.

Just banal winkies, and cheerleading of sub-juvenile insults .

But never mind - it's a 'free' forum, you'll doubtless just keep doing you...

 

[matticus]

I, obviously mistakenly, thought we were discussing climate change and climate changing emissions, but, if you wish to extend it to single use plastics, and, other forms of waste, plus, pollution of water courses, deforestation, etc etc (all of which I think are undesirable) then, so be it.

This is gibberish. At least Pale Rider seems to know what his (admittedly highly flawed) point IS!

 

[Rusty Nails]

It's less likely to be effective if it doesn't appear to be fair.

We are getting past the stage where waiting for, or arguing over, fairness is going to get anything done.

All countries need to do much more, whether they benefited from early industrialisation, like us and most of the Western world, or have been catching up, like China and India.

Point scoring about who needs to do most at a per capita level is irrelevant and (excuse the pun) pointless, except when trying hair shirts on for size. We currently produce 1% of World CO2 emissions so reducing per capita emissions by 50% will only improve world emissions by 0.5%, whilst China reducing PCE by just 10% would improve them by 3%, and the US by 1.5%. Other scenarios can be extrapolated to show the impact of countries' per capita reductions on global pollution.

This doesn't mean we should not do more, but it is the global picture that needs to form the perspective.

 

[Deleted member 121]

We currently produce 1% of World CO2 emissions so reducing per capita emissions by 50% will only improve world emissions by 0.5%

That's where the statistics gets messy as much of what we consume per capita is imported from the likes of China. We are all contributing to that simply having this conversation on our computing devices for example.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That's where the statistics gets messy as much of what we consume per capita is imported from the likes of China. We are all contributing to that simply having this conversation on our computing devices for example.

Yup. The whole thing is messy. As that old saying goes:

Q. "What's the best way to London from here?"
A. "If I was looking for the best way to London I wouldn't be starting from here."

 

[BoldonLad]

We are getting past the stage where waiting for, or arguing over, fairness is going to get anything done.

All countries need to do much more, whether they benefited from early industrialisation, like us and most of the Western world, or have been catching up, like China and India.

Point scoring about who needs to do most at a per capita level is irrelevant and (excuse the pun) pointless, except when trying hair shirts on for size. We currently produce 1% of World CO2 emissions so reducing per capita emissions by 50% will only improve world emissions by 0.5%, whilst China reducing PCE by just 10% would improve them by 3%, and the US by 1.5%. Other scenarios can be extrapolated to show the impact of countries' per capita reductions on global pollution.

This doesn't mean we should not do more, but it is the global picture that needs to form the perspective.

👍