Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
I agree with everything except the need to wait for buy-in from all major counties. First, because it is in our country's best interest to develop the technology that will power our futures. Second, because high income companies got to where we are today by buy burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. Not only did we create the majority of the problem but we have the most resources to try to fix the problem. It doesn't make sense to tell countries that are much poorer than we are that they need to contribute equally in carbon reductions. Especially when per capita their emission are much lower than the USA.
India produces 1.9 tons of CO2 per person
China produces 8 tons of CO2 per person
The USA produces 16.1 tons of CO2 per person.
It is disingenuous to try to blame India and China for CO2 emissions.
|
As I propose my solution, I do so skeptical that we need to do anything at all about CO2 emissions. I merely present it as my best conception of how to address the problem as presented by some.
Mother Earth doesn't care who was most culpable of changing her outdoor thermostat, therefore collaboration is absolutely necessary to bringing about meaningful change.
Like nuclear disarmament, it would be foolish to expect others to follow our lead with no strings attached.
It isn't clear to me that per-capita emissions is the correct frame for the issue of CO2. Half of the equation is population. The US population is stagnant but for being the #1 immigrant nation by far. Why should India get a higher CO2 allowance just because they have a much, much higher birthrate? Maybe the CO2 allowance should be based on population density, with larger land area allowing for greater emissions to discourage gaming the system in a population arms race. I say this partly in jest, but also to say that per capita emissions isn't necessarily a good metric, especially in light of the fact that some nations have population decline (Japan).
I have never blamed China, India, or any country for CO2 emissions. It's a consequence of improving human well-being. Fossil fuel use and wealth are intractibly correlated for the time being.
In my mind, one of the most promising ways for the US to retain technological superiority while also reducing fossil fuel consumption is for the government to fund and promote next-gen nuclear technology. We need to dispel the FUD and NIMBY sentiments that the Communist Soviet Union inadvertently caused when their negligence caused the worst nuclear disaster in history.