This line of argument tends to be a delaying tactic by those that don't want the West to do anything substantial domestically. Also China's not the country that pulled out of global climate accords.
Fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated but is increasing in China. I would say that the house is pretty tidy and waiting for major renovation - but the fact is - what ever pace of usage reduction does not counterbalance exponential usage increase.
US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.
10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.
Enabling exponential usage.
If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.
Let's imagine in simple numbers that "our" usage is 10 right now and by "tons of improvements" we could reduce it to 8. In this example China has 10 too, but is increasing its usage 10% in year and would use close to 20 after 8 years. Now how much sense would these "tons of improvements" make?
China is hit by climate change too. Every side has to fix theirs first or how could you (rich west, that profited mostly from unsustainable economic growth) ever make demands to anyone else. Take it from the game theory perspective. Everyone or noone. And which side is the easiest to change?
To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.
This line of argument tends to be a delaying tactic by those that don't want the West to do anything substantial domestically. Also China's not the country that pulled out of global climate accords.
No. China continues to increase its fossil fuel usage while fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated.
I would settle for cleaning our own house and setting a good example
Fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated but is increasing in China. I would say that the house is pretty tidy and waiting for major renovation - but the fact is - what ever pace of usage reduction does not counterbalance exponential usage increase.
EU has stagnated.
PRC fossil usage is tapering.
US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.
10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.
Enabling exponential usage.
If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.
7 replies →
Why do you want to go force China to do things when we have a ton of improvement to do ourselves?
Let's imagine in simple numbers that "our" usage is 10 right now and by "tons of improvements" we could reduce it to 8. In this example China has 10 too, but is increasing its usage 10% in year and would use close to 20 after 8 years. Now how much sense would these "tons of improvements" make?
What are you gonna do, force them?
Focus on 95% of 5% or focus on 20% of 95%? You're choosing #1.
Do what you can control.
If everyone waits till all the rest take a step forward no one will. Until is too late, of course, then everyone loses.
6 replies →
China is hit by climate change too. Every side has to fix theirs first or how could you (rich west, that profited mostly from unsustainable economic growth) ever make demands to anyone else. Take it from the game theory perspective. Everyone or noone. And which side is the easiest to change?
To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.
3 replies →