| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 08:24 - Sep 18 with 1164 views | chicoazul |
I’m(presumably) one of the Yeah but China people you’re talking about.
I was struck in that article by XR and their strong reaction to the BBC asking them more about it, and the more sanguine and interesting reactions from the veterans of Greenpeace etc
It seems to me from that article that literally everyone knows China is a terrible polluter and yet we see as so often from so many industries just mealy words towards the Party and no serious action. This is because I believe that the Party is in fact very much admired by lots and lots of people, along with many others having their livelihoods depend upon being looked upon favourably by the Party.
Now many people will say “we buy too much tat from China” and we do but we also buy washing machines electronics HVAC and other essential things from them too. What we need to do is not not buy these things, but not buy them from China and make them ourselves. This form of economic pressure may actually cause the reform to many of the terrible things the Party do including emissions.
As so often the Party finds and cultivates bootlickers and useful idiots everywhere. |  |
|  |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 08:49 - Sep 18 with 1120 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
So because they came late to the pollution party we should let them off the huge emissions they now produce.
Yes that will solve climate change.
The UK with some of the most ambitious targets in the world, the UK which will ban the sale of new no EVs before any country in the world (except Norway) must be picketed to make a point to the many 19th century industrialists who are still around.
China meanwhile is allowed not learn from our mistakes bevsues to make her to so would be racist.
Got it. [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 8:59]
|  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:00 - Sep 18 with 1078 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 08:49 - Sep 18 by BlueandTruesince82 |
So because they came late to the pollution party we should let them off the huge emissions they now produce.
Yes that will solve climate change.
The UK with some of the most ambitious targets in the world, the UK which will ban the sale of new no EVs before any country in the world (except Norway) must be picketed to make a point to the many 19th century industrialists who are still around.
China meanwhile is allowed not learn from our mistakes bevsues to make her to so would be racist.
Got it. [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 8:59]
|
The issue isn't that we shouldn't criticise or pressure China to reduce emissions, we absolutely should.
The issue is that a lot of people have gone through the following stages:
1. Climate change doesn't exist.
2. Climate change may exist but the science isn't settled.
3. Climate change does exist but humans are not causing it. Climate has always changed!
4. Climate change does exist and maybe humans are contributing to it.
5. Climate change does exist and humans are the main drivers but it's not that bad.
6. Climate change does exist, humans are the drivers, it is bad, but nothing can be done because X.
Replace the X with China for some people. Also they may include India in there as well.
Another point worth mentioning, and highlighted in the article, is that we can quite easily reduce our carbon emissions (and have) by not producing anything here and importing it all from China or other places that then have to do the dirty work. |  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:01 - Sep 18 with 1078 views | WeWereZombies |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 08:49 - Sep 18 by BlueandTruesince82 |
So because they came late to the pollution party we should let them off the huge emissions they now produce.
Yes that will solve climate change.
The UK with some of the most ambitious targets in the world, the UK which will ban the sale of new no EVs before any country in the world (except Norway) must be picketed to make a point to the many 19th century industrialists who are still around.
China meanwhile is allowed not learn from our mistakes bevsues to make her to so would be racist.
Got it. [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 8:59]
|
Thought for the day - Never pick an argument with someone who has Googled 'Marcus Aurelius quotes' a bit earlier...
'You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.'
'Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.'
'It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinions than our own.' |  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:15 - Sep 18 with 1049 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:00 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
The issue isn't that we shouldn't criticise or pressure China to reduce emissions, we absolutely should.
The issue is that a lot of people have gone through the following stages:
1. Climate change doesn't exist.
2. Climate change may exist but the science isn't settled.
3. Climate change does exist but humans are not causing it. Climate has always changed!
4. Climate change does exist and maybe humans are contributing to it.
5. Climate change does exist and humans are the main drivers but it's not that bad.
6. Climate change does exist, humans are the drivers, it is bad, but nothing can be done because X.
Replace the X with China for some people. Also they may include India in there as well.
Another point worth mentioning, and highlighted in the article, is that we can quite easily reduce our carbon emissions (and have) by not producing anything here and importing it all from China or other places that then have to do the dirty work. |
That's an entirely different conversion though.
The article is about the green movement attitudes towards China. Members of XR accursed the writer of "geopolitical racism" and basically said no we won't do anything/say anything to/about the country that is now the most pollutant, which rather undermines their decision to cause carnage for everyday people.
I realise there are plenty of climate change deniers and they are quite deluded but even the article points out that if China does not change her ways we are pretty much all royally Scrooge McDucked regardless of what the rest of us do if the don't.
So yeah "but China"
That's not to say it excuse the rest of the world from doing its bit, it doesn't, that's not to say we shouldn't conties to push and strive to do more to reduce the Impact... but to ignore China well that's just hammering tbe nais Into out own coffins isn't it [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 9:17]
| |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:18 - Sep 18 with 1032 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:01 - Sep 18 by WeWereZombies |
Thought for the day - Never pick an argument with someone who has Googled 'Marcus Aurelius quotes' a bit earlier...
'You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.'
'Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.'
'It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinions than our own.' |
One of 5 emporers one might take life lessons from | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:24 - Sep 18 with 1016 views | WeWereZombies |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:15 - Sep 18 by BlueandTruesince82 |
That's an entirely different conversion though.
The article is about the green movement attitudes towards China. Members of XR accursed the writer of "geopolitical racism" and basically said no we won't do anything/say anything to/about the country that is now the most pollutant, which rather undermines their decision to cause carnage for everyday people.
I realise there are plenty of climate change deniers and they are quite deluded but even the article points out that if China does not change her ways we are pretty much all royally Scrooge McDucked regardless of what the rest of us do if the don't.
So yeah "but China"
That's not to say it excuse the rest of the world from doing its bit, it doesn't, that's not to say we shouldn't conties to push and strive to do more to reduce the Impact... but to ignore China well that's just hammering tbe nais Into out own coffins isn't it [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 9:17]
|
Wasn't the general thrust of the BBC piece how to get China to increase its efforts rather than to ignore them? For example, the suggestions that a modest level of picketing in front of every Chinese Embassy around the World would get more attention and response than a mass demo (or a growing tide of resentment driven by 'Yeah, but China...') or appeals to their significant economic power being put to use more beneficially (although I am uncomfortable with the Big Brother psychology implicit in that one.) | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:27 - Sep 18 with 1010 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:15 - Sep 18 by BlueandTruesince82 |
That's an entirely different conversion though.
The article is about the green movement attitudes towards China. Members of XR accursed the writer of "geopolitical racism" and basically said no we won't do anything/say anything to/about the country that is now the most pollutant, which rather undermines their decision to cause carnage for everyday people.
I realise there are plenty of climate change deniers and they are quite deluded but even the article points out that if China does not change her ways we are pretty much all royally Scrooge McDucked regardless of what the rest of us do if the don't.
So yeah "but China"
That's not to say it excuse the rest of the world from doing its bit, it doesn't, that's not to say we shouldn't conties to push and strive to do more to reduce the Impact... but to ignore China well that's just hammering tbe nais Into out own coffins isn't it [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 9:17]
|
But as pointed out in the article, people living in the UK can do very little to influence Chinese policies.
We can try and get the Government to do it, and potentially change our buying habits too but other than that any protests have to be extremely well targeted.
I'm sure most activists would love to see the UK putting pressure onto major economies, especially China. To take a phrase from David Cameron, we are all in this together.
As you say, we all need to do our bit, and as you mentioned earlier it's all very well setting some lovely targets up but my understanding is that these targets are now nowhere near as severe as they need to be. The time for some easy decade long targets was two decades ago. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:34 - Sep 18 with 994 views | Guthrum |
Part of the issue with comparing the developed world's historical emmissions with China's today is that the technology exists such that the latter does not need to rely upon the most harmful processes - e.g. burning vast quantities of poor quality coal. Nor do they really need to be simply pouring effluent into rivers and the atmosphere, we understand about pollution nowadays.
It's not so much a matter of whether China (and other places, such as India) should be able to develop indusrially, as if they are allowed to get away with using the cheapest and most damaging methods, despite their economic prosperity meaning they can afford not to. Not to mention the fact that China has much of the world's supply of those raw materials used in the production of green technologies (e.g. rare earths), so it would increase their energy security, for example (and reduce the amount of Australian brown coal being mined).
We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But that's not really an excuse. Everyone is wiser now and aware of the climate crisis. We don't allow things like children working 10-hour days in a factory now just because it was done at a time when we were growing industrially.
In terms of the developed world supporting China financially, we already are - vastly - by importing their products in huge quantities. If they want to offset higher manufacturing costs, add it to the price of those goods. It's hardly going to be enough to render them suddenly uncompetitive. |  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:46 - Sep 18 with 957 views | Guthrum |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:18 - Sep 18 by BlueandTruesince82 |
One of 5 emporers one might take life lessons from |
There are more than five, tho in most cases the lesson is "don't do this". | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:52 - Sep 18 with 945 views | WeWereZombies |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:34 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
Part of the issue with comparing the developed world's historical emmissions with China's today is that the technology exists such that the latter does not need to rely upon the most harmful processes - e.g. burning vast quantities of poor quality coal. Nor do they really need to be simply pouring effluent into rivers and the atmosphere, we understand about pollution nowadays.
It's not so much a matter of whether China (and other places, such as India) should be able to develop indusrially, as if they are allowed to get away with using the cheapest and most damaging methods, despite their economic prosperity meaning they can afford not to. Not to mention the fact that China has much of the world's supply of those raw materials used in the production of green technologies (e.g. rare earths), so it would increase their energy security, for example (and reduce the amount of Australian brown coal being mined).
We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But that's not really an excuse. Everyone is wiser now and aware of the climate crisis. We don't allow things like children working 10-hour days in a factory now just because it was done at a time when we were growing industrially.
In terms of the developed world supporting China financially, we already are - vastly - by importing their products in huge quantities. If they want to offset higher manufacturing costs, add it to the price of those goods. It's hardly going to be enough to render them suddenly uncompetitive. |
Except that it will render China uncompetitive in the way that individual manufacturers and wholesalers make day to day decisions in relation to what they can buy from and sell to others when assessing Chinese goods in comparison to goods from Vietnam, Indonesia, Turkey and so on (still to come fully onstream - the Philippines, Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan etc.)
And as China increases in economic power so it moves from worker production of cheap goods as the norm to become a Western style society with a preponderance of middle class administrative and consumerist ambitions. When you are climbing a ladder the instinct is to get to somewhere that allows you to get off the ladder rather than stay where you are or go down a rung or two whilst others climb over you.
No one really needs to be told that most of the ways Capitalism is used, even when it is used by an ostensibly Communist state, are not suitable or sustainable. Some form of circuit breaker is necessary to get the human race back on track, and whoever instigates it will no doubt do so with an idea of how the want the World to operate when the power comes back on. That's if a nation state, international body or some other form of movement can set up the circuit breaker, it may just get imposed upon us by the events we are creating. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:54 - Sep 18 with 944 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:34 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
Part of the issue with comparing the developed world's historical emmissions with China's today is that the technology exists such that the latter does not need to rely upon the most harmful processes - e.g. burning vast quantities of poor quality coal. Nor do they really need to be simply pouring effluent into rivers and the atmosphere, we understand about pollution nowadays.
It's not so much a matter of whether China (and other places, such as India) should be able to develop indusrially, as if they are allowed to get away with using the cheapest and most damaging methods, despite their economic prosperity meaning they can afford not to. Not to mention the fact that China has much of the world's supply of those raw materials used in the production of green technologies (e.g. rare earths), so it would increase their energy security, for example (and reduce the amount of Australian brown coal being mined).
We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But that's not really an excuse. Everyone is wiser now and aware of the climate crisis. We don't allow things like children working 10-hour days in a factory now just because it was done at a time when we were growing industrially.
In terms of the developed world supporting China financially, we already are - vastly - by importing their products in huge quantities. If they want to offset higher manufacturing costs, add it to the price of those goods. It's hardly going to be enough to render them suddenly uncompetitive. |
"We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries"
Sorry but this is incorrect, most of the emissions did not come from the 19th or early 20th centuries, but the mid to late 20th centuries.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264699/worldwide-co2-emissions/
Scientists and Governments were aware by at least the mid 1960s that this was an issue. So it's not quite the case we didn't have the knowledge, we just didn't care. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:58 - Sep 18 with 931 views | Dubtractor |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:54 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
"We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries"
Sorry but this is incorrect, most of the emissions did not come from the 19th or early 20th centuries, but the mid to late 20th centuries.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264699/worldwide-co2-emissions/
Scientists and Governments were aware by at least the mid 1960s that this was an issue. So it's not quite the case we didn't have the knowledge, we just didn't care. |
"So it's not quite the case we didn't have the knowledge, we just didn't care."
I'm currently reading this book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50998056-the-ministry-for-the-future
Its a fictional look back from the near future, combined with lots of actual history of how we got here, it almost has a bit of a feeling of an Adam Curtis documentary combined with a novel.
Anyway, a common theme within the book is exactly your comment that I've quoted.
Although the "we" in the book is more focussed on governments, corporations, and powerful people than individuals. ie those actually with the power and influence to change things. [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 10:03]
|  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:13 - Sep 18 with 906 views | Guthrum |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:52 - Sep 18 by WeWereZombies |
Except that it will render China uncompetitive in the way that individual manufacturers and wholesalers make day to day decisions in relation to what they can buy from and sell to others when assessing Chinese goods in comparison to goods from Vietnam, Indonesia, Turkey and so on (still to come fully onstream - the Philippines, Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan etc.)
And as China increases in economic power so it moves from worker production of cheap goods as the norm to become a Western style society with a preponderance of middle class administrative and consumerist ambitions. When you are climbing a ladder the instinct is to get to somewhere that allows you to get off the ladder rather than stay where you are or go down a rung or two whilst others climb over you.
No one really needs to be told that most of the ways Capitalism is used, even when it is used by an ostensibly Communist state, are not suitable or sustainable. Some form of circuit breaker is necessary to get the human race back on track, and whoever instigates it will no doubt do so with an idea of how the want the World to operate when the power comes back on. That's if a nation state, international body or some other form of movement can set up the circuit breaker, it may just get imposed upon us by the events we are creating. |
It'll be quite a long while before China arrives at a place where it runs out of cheap labour. They just ship more in from rural areas. Plus they have resource, scale and development advantages over many of those places. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:21 - Sep 18 with 892 views | WeWereZombies |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:13 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
It'll be quite a long while before China arrives at a place where it runs out of cheap labour. They just ship more in from rural areas. Plus they have resource, scale and development advantages over many of those places. |
The same is true of the United Kingdom, except our rural areas used to be in places like Suffolk...and then it was Poland...rural Afghanistan incoming...China does have a burgeoning middle class y'know. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:22 - Sep 18 with 885 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:58 - Sep 18 by Dubtractor |
"So it's not quite the case we didn't have the knowledge, we just didn't care."
I'm currently reading this book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50998056-the-ministry-for-the-future
Its a fictional look back from the near future, combined with lots of actual history of how we got here, it almost has a bit of a feeling of an Adam Curtis documentary combined with a novel.
Anyway, a common theme within the book is exactly your comment that I've quoted.
Although the "we" in the book is more focussed on governments, corporations, and powerful people than individuals. ie those actually with the power and influence to change things. [Post edited 18 Sep 2021 10:03]
|
Yes to be clear, by "we" I meant those listed rather than your every day person. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:30 - Sep 18 with 856 views | Guthrum |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 09:54 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
"We might be accused of holding them to higher standards than we maintained in the 19th and early 20th centuries"
Sorry but this is incorrect, most of the emissions did not come from the 19th or early 20th centuries, but the mid to late 20th centuries.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264699/worldwide-co2-emissions/
Scientists and Governments were aware by at least the mid 1960s that this was an issue. So it's not quite the case we didn't have the knowledge, we just didn't care. |
We had no excuse then, China has no excuse now. The argument that "we should be allowed to destroy the environment now because you did then" when it is not necessary is a silly one, in the context of the evident damage it causes, to them as much as to us.
Moreover, that period from the mid-20th century is exactly when some of today's worst offenders (USA, Soviet Union/Russia, Maoist China) got going*. The UK had been coasting or in decline for 50 years by then, long overtaken by others in industrial output.
* And, for that matter, when consumerism really took off. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:37 - Sep 18 with 842 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:30 - Sep 18 by Guthrum |
We had no excuse then, China has no excuse now. The argument that "we should be allowed to destroy the environment now because you did then" when it is not necessary is a silly one, in the context of the evident damage it causes, to them as much as to us.
Moreover, that period from the mid-20th century is exactly when some of today's worst offenders (USA, Soviet Union/Russia, Maoist China) got going*. The UK had been coasting or in decline for 50 years by then, long overtaken by others in industrial output.
* And, for that matter, when consumerism really took off. |
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, I thought you were saying that we can claim we didn't know but China could not. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:38 - Sep 18 with 841 views | Digger77 |
Why would anyone want to make themselves poorer by buying an insufficient electric car etc, while China continues to build a large coal power station every week?
It's like p1ssing in the Pacific!
A smug feeling just isn't enough for me! |  | | |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:47 - Sep 18 with 819 views | Guthrum |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:21 - Sep 18 by WeWereZombies |
The same is true of the United Kingdom, except our rural areas used to be in places like Suffolk...and then it was Poland...rural Afghanistan incoming...China does have a burgeoning middle class y'know. |
It does (and a rapidly growing ultra-wealthy one, too), but proportionally it is still very small.
Most of Britain's rural population had been sucked into the cities by about the 1870s (railways, poverty and disease drove that at an incredible pace). | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:05 - Sep 18 with 794 views | Guthrum |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:37 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, I thought you were saying that we can claim we didn't know but China could not. |
I would say at comparable stages in economic development (which for the UK was around the 1870s to 1914, insofar as a parallel can be drawn), that probably is true. Tho the problems of what we would now call pollution were being highlighted even then.
However, once the knowlege is out there and the technology to put it into practice, any ignorance-based excuse disappears. Especially when the serious consequences of continuing are so obvious.
It's not like the Chinese government lacks the ability to impose controls on its economy, like many Western ones have struggled with. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:09 - Sep 18 with 784 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 10:38 - Sep 18 by Digger77 |
Why would anyone want to make themselves poorer by buying an insufficient electric car etc, while China continues to build a large coal power station every week?
It's like p1ssing in the Pacific!
A smug feeling just isn't enough for me! |
And this is exactly the attitude problem I was talking about.
You're using China as an excuse to do nothing.
All countries need to pull together, including China. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:20 - Sep 18 with 764 views | chicoazul |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:09 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
And this is exactly the attitude problem I was talking about.
You're using China as an excuse to do nothing.
All countries need to pull together, including China. |
You call it an attitude problem if you like but *there is* no point in to borrow his point, an electric car (which still uses enormous amounts of energy and resources to build and use) while China builds enough new coal power stations which on their own dwarf our emissions. This is British exceptionalism writ large thinking that we are an important influential country. | |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:48 - Sep 18 with 738 views | Darth_Koont |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:09 - Sep 18 by DanTheMan |
And this is exactly the attitude problem I was talking about.
You're using China as an excuse to do nothing.
All countries need to pull together, including China. |
Indeed. It’s like not caring about catching Covid yourself when it’s the spread that is the biggest concern. These are the attitudes that cause the continuing problem.
And on a Covid note, we’ve acted privately, locally, nationally and globally as we’ve seen it needs a top-to-bottom coordinated response and some sacrifice. Yet for the climate catastrophe we can barely consider a fraction of that.
I presume that people see more of a direct and personal threat with Covid. Which is utterly insane given what we know about climate change and the turmoil, flooding, migrations, wars and mass death that will occur even with a lot of the best-case scenarios and predictions. That’s without including us making many thousands of species extinct. Or the fact that diseases like Covid are also a product of how crap a job we are at managing and looking after the planet.
I like the idea of “custodian” in the article. That guardian role is what we should be measuring ourselves against and currently we’re like a zoo owner who doesn’t clean or feed the animals or give them enough space because all that would cut into profits. Personally, I think we are the zoo owner because it’s our responsibility but failing that we’re the visitors who keep the shonky zoo going because we want to be entertained and don’t actually have much empathy about what we’re seeing or self-awareness of our role. Certainly, we can’t just tut at the zookeepers and blame them. |  |
| |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:52 - Sep 18 with 725 views | DanTheMan |
| Interesting BBC article for the 'Yeah, but China' posters on 11:20 - Sep 18 by chicoazul |
You call it an attitude problem if you like but *there is* no point in to borrow his point, an electric car (which still uses enormous amounts of energy and resources to build and use) while China builds enough new coal power stations which on their own dwarf our emissions. This is British exceptionalism writ large thinking that we are an important influential country. |
Lol it's got nothing to do with British exceptionalism. We, and many many other countries (including China) all have to do more.
If everyone else did what they needed to but China didn't, we'd still be better off than if nobody did anything because China wasn't.
Focus on ourselves and try to influence others. China, Australia, Canada, Russia, the U.S etc. all need to commit to more.
As it happens our targets are pretty good comparatively but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for further or faster action to meet the 2030 goals. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
