How do they do it 9

[1503-44]

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-proxy-data-reveals-climate-of-earths-distant-past/

 

[1503-44]

IMO they are obviously talking about minimising the effect CC has on poverty. Anything else would be outside their scope of activity, right. Otherwise this is not the thread to define poverty, but if you need to, just take it as income below the given levels as defined by your country of residence.

 

[Lariliss]

Climate change and poverty might be deeply intertwined but in sense of vulnerability to the effects.
There is no target to eliminate poverty for the CC targets. There are donor countries which should lead the economical process and leverage the situation for the CC in hundreds of countries.
How a 20 - 30 year action on climate can eliminate poverty (rhetoric)?

 

[Ron247]

There is no target to eliminate poverty for the CC targets.

SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 ºC
Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities

This is just one publication of the IPCC that combines the 2 subjects. I have seen the topic in several CC publications by the IPCC. It is not that I have a problem with eradicating poverty, but getting rid of poverty can have no or very little effect on correcting CC. Treat it as a separate issue if CC is so critical and imminent danger. What they appear to be doing is tacking poverty that they would like to get rid of to a measure that is needed. Well, that just confuses things and drastically lessens universal support.

If you improve poor peoples lives in a monetary sense, you will probably increase their carbon footprint at the same time.

As I said, the IPCC is the driving force for CC but at the same time, they are too inconsistent to be "scientific". China is a "developing nation" and therefore less is expected of them? That developing nation just launched a hypersonic missile that I guess no developed nation has, is literally building islands in the ocean and has a fairly robust military. Again, IPCC is mostly a play on words intertwined with a potentially serious CC issue.

 

[Lariliss]

This is just one publication of the IPCC that combines the 2 subjects. I have seen the topic in several CC publications by the IPCC. It is not that I have a problem with eradicating poverty, but getting rid of poverty can have no or very little effect on correcting CC. Treat it as a separate issue if CC is so critical and imminent danger. What they appear to be doing is tacking poverty that they would like to get rid of to a measure that is needed. Well, that just confuses things and drastically lessens universal support.

If you improve poor peoples lives in a monetary sense, you will probably increase their carbon footprint at the same time.

As I said, the IPCC is the driving force for CC but at the same time, they are too inconsistent to be "scientific". China is a "developing nation" and therefore less is expected of them? That developing nation just launched a hypersonic missile that I guess no developed nation has, is literally building islands in the ocean and has a fairly robust military. Again, IPCC is mostly a play on words intertwined with a potentially serious CC issue.

True.
IPCC is a high level report, that is using current scales and patterns. It is not dynamic.
That's for new international calculations, reports, agreements, amendments and direct actions should leverage the issue.

IPCC is not a driver, right?
That's what COP26 for. Let the achievements be in time.

 

[rb1957]

I think the IPCC is trying to use "eradicate poverty" as a foil (a distraction ?) to the question about denying 3rd world economies cheap FF energy.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[1503-44]

Makes perfect sense. Not.

 

Let's just come right out and say it:

IPCC is part of the secret one-world government cabal (socialist variety) that only wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

There's something that really bothers me about the complaints about COP26 or the IPCC or Kyoto or whatever climate change "agreements". Yes, they are imperfect. Yes, they tend not to hold developing nations to the same standards. I get that. But, that doesn't negate the need / urgency of us to do OUR part.

Here are my thoughts:
a) There is a legitimate argument that the more regulatory measures we take in our country, the more manufacturing will be outsourced to other countries thereby INCREASING the carbon footprint.

b) Fine, let's address that issue by imposing tariffs or import taxes on goods from countries or provinces that get x percentage of their power from coal... or such. Yes, this will have an inflationary effect on the price of goods. But, that inflationary effect reflects the genuine COST to our society and our environment caused by those countries not doing a good job with their CO2 emissions.

c) We then take the income from those tariffs and use it to greatly expand our clean energy and get our own houses in order.

d) I'd do the same thing with countries or provinces that use "slave labor", "child labor" or engage in other such practices that our country finds repugnant.

 

[Ron247]

Josh, for me, it is not whether they hold developing nations to the same standard, it is more related to who they define as a developing nation. I will never consider China a "developing nation" in my definition unless someone can clearly inform why it is one. Am I incorrect that China is considered a developing nation? I understand you can create any definition you want and call it anything you want. I can define wealthy as anyone with more than a trillion dollars and therefore, there are no wealthy people. Silly concept, but to me, it is accurate as China is a developing nation. They hold a lot of the US debt. I don't recall many developing nations playing banker. Whatever service or ability that developing nations have, while China does not have it, is because of where they choose to spend their money.

We do all need to participate in reducing our negative imprint on the environment. But as long as the "leaders" of the movement on either side exempt themselves, their allies from the things they insist must be done and they include unrelated requirements, it will probably not get resolved. And to me, the people who support those entity's ideas, should be the ones riding herd on them and demanding they change some of their direction. Those of the opposing viewpoint cannot make them change anything and so, here we stand.

 

Of course China is a 'developing nation' !

They are developing social control software for their population, including those abroad.
They are developing advanced high-tech weapons.
They are developing a massive network of concentration camps.
They are developing international loan-sharking capabilities.
They are developing their coal-burning capacity.
They are developing internet spying capabilities.
They are developing international extortion skills (of sovereign nations, corporations, Hollywood).


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

No matter what we say at these climate accords, or what the IPCC says, China will do what China wants to do.

I agree that they should not be put into the same category as the other "developing" nations, and that they should be held to the higher standards that we hold ourselves to. However, my main point is that it doesn't matter what China agrees to do.... It shouldn't affect the actions that WE decide to take.

If those actions tend to punish China for their reliance on coal to produce the goods that we buy from them, then that's totally fair. China will be pissed at us, but so what?!

 

[rb1957]

and what have the Romans Chinese ever done for us ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

Their cheap manufacturing and subsidization of freight and other costs give us the live style we've been used to for the last few decades.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

IRStuff,

By 'lifestyle' I assume you mean returning to the store to replace all your large appliances every 5 years.
Funny thing though, prices are not lower than when they were made in N. America.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

You really didn't think you'd get anything on the cheap did you.
US Mfgrs moved the mfgr part to China to build it cheaper and charge the same price, keep more profit.
The Chinese copied the designs, built themselves, charged the same price and put the US mfgrs out of buisness, as their mfgr capacity had moved to China. Same thing the Japanese did 40yrs earlier. Remember whem everything said "Made in Japan"? Remember when everything said "Hecho en Mexico"? Remember when everything said "Made in Singapor"?

 

[Ron247]

Josh , I respectfully disagree about whether China matters in what "we" do. There are just individuals, companies and our government. The "we" does not kick in until you get to company or government. First, there is what I personally am willing to do. I willingly do certain things. China has no affect on that. But when my government increases my taxes, increases the cost of things I use, gets involved with a "world-wide program", creates debt that I must one day help pay, or does anything else that affects me, then China and how my government treats them does matter to me. Since I cannot singular stop my government allowing China to do less while still trading with them, I can only reduce what I am willing to personally do. I cannot singularly stop my government from stifling oil production here just to turn around and allow it to increase in other places. Again, no net change in demand, just a change in who it costs more to.

Our manufacturing costs go up, so we buy more from China at "what we think is a cheaper price" and they build new coal powered power plants because of their increased need for power. That is not scientific or sane. But rather than say China is a developed nation and therefor more is expected of, the United Nations and US found it easier to call them something else, and avoid the issue because "China will do, what China is going to do". Well, is anything wrong with everyone else doing what they are going to do?

If you want to slow down CC, go back to manufacturing in countries that do participate, buy from them and exclude any country that has the means but chooses to not use it. But I have heard no proposal on that.

 

Ron247,

That can be legitimately accomplished if we were to starting charging for the true cost of shipping, of power production, of pollution. The costs that businesses have managed to externalize until now. Then we would see a lot of manufacturing return.

The St. Lawrence Seaway makes a good case study in an environmentally destructive exercise that is a losing proposition from every point of view.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[Ron247]

Good points 1503-44. Shows our path to destruction through capitalism driven by greed assisted by a populace that is not capable of thinking very well. I have no problem with capitalism, but I do have a problem with greed and "stuck on stupid". The US mfgs were so busy counting profits, they did not notice the other Americans making alliances abroad. You make it, and I will sell it for you in the US.

 

[rb1957]

what is the "true cost" of anything ? This is the problem with Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Personally I think it's flipping all of us the bird ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

If you want to slow down CC, go back to manufacturing in countries that do participate, buy from them and exclude any country that has the means but chooses to not use it. But I have heard no proposal on that.

That's sort of my point. We can't get China to voluntarily do anything. Therefore, we have to do something ourselves.... like add tariffs to the goods we import from locations that use coal or such.

Note: I agree that we can't determine the "true cost" of these things. However, we can make attempts at corrective action. The question is whether our political process will allow it.... Will big money companies use their political influence and money to prevent us from imposing tariffs or collecting these costs from China (or other countries that don't take CO2 reduction seriously)?