Todd Moss spot on in this post, as was Roger Pielke Jr. in his. I can't help pointing also to the unbelievable remarks of US Climate Envoy John Kerry, prompted by a question from Todd at a US/Africa business summit a couple years ago. Kerry said: "Just because some people didn't have their chance to make those mistakes doesn't mean they ought to go do it now…. The Earth doesn’t have the carbon space right now….” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr-Y9XRYoXw&t=3s
A colleague just sent me this interesting addition: The UK Labour Party's International Development Committee chair Sarah Champion in response to CGD's Ian Mitchell's question about support for fossil fuels in poor countries: "I bring you back to our racism enquiry. I find it deeply offensive when the global north has gone through all the industrial revolution and was can afford to take a position [on climate] and then we tell other people what they ought not to be doing."
I work in natural gas exploration in Bangladesh and other parts of South Asia. There, I'm yet to encounter opposition to further fossil fuel use and development, that's understood as a neurosis of rich places.
I would consider that when you do it and mess with water supplies as the Chinese may be doing with petroleum development in the Taklamakhan it could be war. Read The Dust Detective in the High Country News
Brilliant observations - thank you! Unless things have changed recently, in (far too) many African homes, cooking is done using wood as fuel in poorly-ventilated spaces, taking a terrible toll on health. The sooner the people there can cook using gas or electric induction, the better, say I. Just because I'm extremely fortunate and privileged doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't be.
I remember when the "Make Poverty History" campaign came out years ago, there was an opposition movement that came out saying, "Make WEALTH History: Because the Earth cannot afford our lifestyle". We see the same today in the "degrowth" movement too. It is ironically the ultimate luxury belief of the privileged.
There exist thousands of types of scarcity, underlying the entire structure of modern techno-industrial civilization. One that is webbed inside a “global empire” based on hierarchy and common insecurity and crisis, wielding multiple forms of scarcity for all. Well, all except the super rich and powerful. As explained by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri -“Empire is characterized fundamentally by a total lack of boundaries: political, social, cultural, racial and ecological. Empire’s rule has no limits. First and foremost, then, the existence of Empire posits a regime that effectively encompasses the spatial totality, or really that rules over the entire ‘‘civilized’’ world.” (Empire, Harvard University Press). By that logic, the most privileged within the “Empire” will obviously gather more power (resources and opportunities) while avoiding most scarcity.Precisely why for a very long time, the weakest, poorest and most “wretched of the earth” have faced every form of scarcity while the powerful and technologically clever continued to thrive in abundance. A paradigmatic form of “biopower” - a duality creating immense material abundance for a few, while predicating “scarcity of everything important” for you and me, and everyone else including the entire non-human world. But rising scarcity begins to undermine any ruling order and class.
As for overpopulation, that is unfortunately all too real. It is the elephant in the room, make that the elephant in the Volkswagen, and if we honestly want everyone to have anything close to a decent standard of living in the future (which we should!), it must be addressed sooner than later. However, that problem can be ethically and organically rightsized with 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, no coercion or racism required. With NO apologies to the anti-choicers and forced-birthers, period. So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!
There is no overpopulation problem. (See E. Musk) Lies, damn lies and statistics. As Carlin once said, the planet is fine, it's the people that are F'd. Or more aporopriately, participated in involuntary sterilization.
LOL, Elon Musk is hardly an authority in that matter. How many Earths would we need worth of resources if everyone lived like him, or even a fraction of that?
But we could just go to Mars after we are done messing up Earth beyond repair, right?
Most populations do reach natural limits to growth. If you ever did study geography, ecology, population dynamics you know the consequences of not paying attention to fertility rates. We call non replacement populations in decline when they reach extinction rates. a
Actually look at studies in endangered species. The thing is you might be able to predict (or in the case of eugenicists, even work to create) crashes but in many cases a new equilibrium takes place when stressors are released and not enhanced. or promoted.
It seems to me that your point about no plausible scenario existing where Africas emissions become a problem is really a point about no plausible scenario existing where Africa follows the energy journey China has taken to 31000 kWh average, let alone approaches the EU 36000 kWh average or the US 78000 kWh average.
Assuming you just made a conversion that includes the new family Tesla? Lets see your typical breakout and don't neglect the extraction, embedded construction energy and more. That said I am in the camp of the former Dr. William Kellogg of the Aspen Institute. Climate will change, anthropogenic influenced or not. He promoted adaptation. I would add a global environmental impact statement so we don’t screw up what is already working. That and a climate fee and dividend system so I don't support Bezo's yacht excursions or Al Gore's jet rides and eating habits or Gate's 100 circle pumped water irrigation systems or those visitors to Davos or the CBDC or Facebook or Googles internet energy usage consumption.
Not sure what you mean. What do think the US is paying for exactly? If you don’t know how infrastructure is financed or how development finance is scored in the US budget, please have a looksie. And then let me know your point.
Since 2005, the U.S. has decreased carbon emissions by 17.2%. However, for environmentalists, that isn’t enough. In 2023, China produced 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually, over double that of the U.S., which stood at about 5.9 billion metric tons annually. In terms of proportion, China accounts for 32% of carbon emissions, the U.S. for 14%, and India for 8%, according to USA Today.
Todd Moss spot on in this post, as was Roger Pielke Jr. in his. I can't help pointing also to the unbelievable remarks of US Climate Envoy John Kerry, prompted by a question from Todd at a US/Africa business summit a couple years ago. Kerry said: "Just because some people didn't have their chance to make those mistakes doesn't mean they ought to go do it now…. The Earth doesn’t have the carbon space right now….” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr-Y9XRYoXw&t=3s
Kerry needs to be placed on a diet. Carbon reductions are ultimately energy use reductions and benefit many with minor adaptations to lifestyles.
Indeed, the audacity of the privileged.
A colleague just sent me this interesting addition: The UK Labour Party's International Development Committee chair Sarah Champion in response to CGD's Ian Mitchell's question about support for fossil fuels in poor countries: "I bring you back to our racism enquiry. I find it deeply offensive when the global north has gone through all the industrial revolution and was can afford to take a position [on climate] and then we tell other people what they ought not to be doing."
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/live/WGJRdfHenkw?feature=share&t=1615
I work in natural gas exploration in Bangladesh and other parts of South Asia. There, I'm yet to encounter opposition to further fossil fuel use and development, that's understood as a neurosis of rich places.
Indeed, such neurosis is a luxury belief of the privileged.
I would consider that when you do it and mess with water supplies as the Chinese may be doing with petroleum development in the Taklamakhan it could be war. Read The Dust Detective in the High Country News
Brilliant observations - thank you! Unless things have changed recently, in (far too) many African homes, cooking is done using wood as fuel in poorly-ventilated spaces, taking a terrible toll on health. The sooner the people there can cook using gas or electric induction, the better, say I. Just because I'm extremely fortunate and privileged doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't be.
Good quotes exposing the malevolence of the Carbonistas.
I remember when the "Make Poverty History" campaign came out years ago, there was an opposition movement that came out saying, "Make WEALTH History: Because the Earth cannot afford our lifestyle". We see the same today in the "degrowth" movement too. It is ironically the ultimate luxury belief of the privileged.
There exist thousands of types of scarcity, underlying the entire structure of modern techno-industrial civilization. One that is webbed inside a “global empire” based on hierarchy and common insecurity and crisis, wielding multiple forms of scarcity for all. Well, all except the super rich and powerful. As explained by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri -“Empire is characterized fundamentally by a total lack of boundaries: political, social, cultural, racial and ecological. Empire’s rule has no limits. First and foremost, then, the existence of Empire posits a regime that effectively encompasses the spatial totality, or really that rules over the entire ‘‘civilized’’ world.” (Empire, Harvard University Press). By that logic, the most privileged within the “Empire” will obviously gather more power (resources and opportunities) while avoiding most scarcity.Precisely why for a very long time, the weakest, poorest and most “wretched of the earth” have faced every form of scarcity while the powerful and technologically clever continued to thrive in abundance. A paradigmatic form of “biopower” - a duality creating immense material abundance for a few, while predicating “scarcity of everything important” for you and me, and everyone else including the entire non-human world. But rising scarcity begins to undermine any ruling order and class.
Everything is raaaaaacist!!!1!
As for overpopulation, that is unfortunately all too real. It is the elephant in the room, make that the elephant in the Volkswagen, and if we honestly want everyone to have anything close to a decent standard of living in the future (which we should!), it must be addressed sooner than later. However, that problem can be ethically and organically rightsized with 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, no coercion or racism required. With NO apologies to the anti-choicers and forced-birthers, period. So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!
There is no overpopulation problem. (See E. Musk) Lies, damn lies and statistics. As Carlin once said, the planet is fine, it's the people that are F'd. Or more aporopriately, participated in involuntary sterilization.
LOL, Elon Musk is hardly an authority in that matter. How many Earths would we need worth of resources if everyone lived like him, or even a fraction of that?
But we could just go to Mars after we are done messing up Earth beyond repair, right?
Most populations do reach natural limits to growth. If you ever did study geography, ecology, population dynamics you know the consequences of not paying attention to fertility rates. We call non replacement populations in decline when they reach extinction rates. a
Actually look at studies in endangered species. The thing is you might be able to predict (or in the case of eugenicists, even work to create) crashes but in many cases a new equilibrium takes place when stressors are released and not enhanced. or promoted.
It seems to me that your point about no plausible scenario existing where Africas emissions become a problem is really a point about no plausible scenario existing where Africa follows the energy journey China has taken to 31000 kWh average, let alone approaches the EU 36000 kWh average or the US 78000 kWh average.
Assuming you just made a conversion that includes the new family Tesla? Lets see your typical breakout and don't neglect the extraction, embedded construction energy and more. That said I am in the camp of the former Dr. William Kellogg of the Aspen Institute. Climate will change, anthropogenic influenced or not. He promoted adaptation. I would add a global environmental impact statement so we don’t screw up what is already working. That and a climate fee and dividend system so I don't support Bezo's yacht excursions or Al Gore's jet rides and eating habits or Gate's 100 circle pumped water irrigation systems or those visitors to Davos or the CBDC or Facebook or Googles internet energy usage consumption.
We, (USA, cannot afford to pay) for everyone to live our...
Not sure what you mean. What do think the US is paying for exactly? If you don’t know how infrastructure is financed or how development finance is scored in the US budget, please have a looksie. And then let me know your point.
Who is "we, kemosabe?"
Since 2005, the U.S. has decreased carbon emissions by 17.2%. However, for environmentalists, that isn’t enough. In 2023, China produced 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually, over double that of the U.S., which stood at about 5.9 billion metric tons annually. In terms of proportion, China accounts for 32% of carbon emissions, the U.S. for 14%, and India for 8%, according to USA Today.