GDB wrote:

To expand on my previous post, there is an increasing anger here, not just with the young either;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ods-tories

c933103 wrote:

GDB wrote:

To expand on my previous post, there is an increasing anger here, not just with the young either;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ods-tories

"Reparation" is not "climate action".
The supposed goal of reparation is to relive people suffering from effect of climate change, not to alleviate climate change itself.

GDB wrote:

c933103 wrote:

GDB wrote:

To expand on my previous post, there is an increasing anger here, not just with the young either;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ods-tories

"Reparation" is not "climate action".
The supposed goal of reparation is to relive people suffering from effect of climate change, not to alleviate climate change itself.

Yes, I know that, my views on reparation I have already stated, it is directly linked to where we are now, as I said, if we cannot even agree on this urgent action now and the forces that have led us here, you can whistle for reparations.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Per Capita is a flawed matrix to use

It's less flawed than blithely comparing two countries with populations of 1.4 billion and 25 million. That's just ludicrous.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Per Capita is a flawed matrix to use

It's less flawed than blithely comparing two countries with populations of 1.4 billion and 25 million. That's just ludicrous.

bit like the Pacific Island countries putting the squeeze on Australia over climate and then running to China who emits more carbon every 16 days than Australia does in a year

e]

A101 wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/11/08/cop27-dont-owe-developing-countries-climate-reparations-owe/

I thought this was an interesting to see come out of cop27 and found the below quite amusing if not the seriousness. I bit like the Pacific Island countries putting the squeeze on Australia over climate and then running to China who emits more carbon every 16 days than Australia does in a year

Dear Pakistan,

It was with some surprise that we learnt that you and other countries, including Bangladesh, Kenya, Mauritius and even China, would be seeking “climate change reparations” from the United Kingdom at this week’s Cop27 summit. Apparently, you (and Ed Miliband) think that the terrible floods Pakistan suffered recently are entirely the fault of industrialised Western countries like our own because of historic carbon emissions.

While there may be some truth in that, other experts have suggested that the reason Pakistan experiences such terrible flooding is because you have cut down all your trees. Pakistan has the highest rate of deforestation in the world. When your nation was created in 1947, 33% of the total land mass was covered by forests; now that area is only 5%. Because of the lack of trees, the rain runs straight off the mountains into the silted up reservoirs which then overflow.

In addition, we would like to point out that Pakistan has always had major floods, many just as catastrophic as the recent one. The 1950 flood, for example, killed twice as many people as the 2022 flood within a much lower population. Not every natural disaster can be blamed on the United Kingdom, gratifying and lucrative though that accusation may be.

Pakistan is already one of the UK’s biggest recipients of aid. In 2019/20, you received around £302 million from our heavily indebted country, spanning areas including human development, climate and the environment. Most British people would consider that quite a generous gift to a nation which has its own nuclear weapons and a space programme. Pakistan also has more than a thousand coal mines. We do wonder whether you have any concerns about their impact or was it just British coal mines which caused a problem?

Plus, the present population of Pakistan is 225 million (up from 65 million in 1970) which will inevitably add to pressure on the environment. Sorry, there’s not a whole lot we can do about that.

The proposition, as we understand it, is that Pakistan should now receive “loss and damage” compensation from UK for the “cost” of historic emissions. How is that bill to be calculated exactly?

We remain proud of our Industrial Revolution which freed millions of ordinary people from back-breaking servitude, as well as causing a vast and sudden increase in life expectancy. For centuries, the average lifespan in the UK barely rose above 36 years. By 1901, life expectancy had jumped to 45 years (men) and 50 years (women), due to an increase in wealth, the production of cheaper goods, healthier diets and better education.

The UK will neither apologise nor make amends for the Industrial Revolution whose beneficial effects continue to be felt every day around our world.

Should you persist in your unfair demands for “climate reparations”, may we suggest you pay us royalties for the following: the internal combustion engine, Spinning Jenny, steam power, Tarmacadam, electrical telegraph, railways, automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, computers, pharmaceuticals and the world wide web.

We’ll throw in Parliamentary government and democracy for free as a gesture of goodwill. Bank transfers welcome.

Very best wishes and we remain cordially yours,

Britain

c933103 wrote:

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

mxaxai wrote:

c933103 wrote:

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

It is both "too late" in the sense that there will be some climate change and yet "early enough" to still prevent catastrophic results.

par13del wrote:

So is the carbon trading scheme between nations reparations by stealth?

c933103 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So is the carbon trading scheme between nations reparations by stealth?

That's not related to the topic I think

par13del wrote:

c933103 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So is the carbon trading scheme between nations reparations by stealth?

That's not related to the topic I think

Its all related to climate change...the trading schemes allow those nations who are not meeting their climate change metrics to purchase carbon credits from nations who are and or have excess credits. The financial aspects of climate change started with the assigning, purchasing and selling of carbon credits. The man in the street is being sold on climate change and the need to do something, to those in the back it is all financial.
What was the last financial reparations that folks were on, slavery, now we have climate change.

c933103 wrote:

GDB wrote:

c933103 wrote:

"Reparation" is not "climate action".
The supposed goal of reparation is to relive people suffering from effect of climate change, not to alleviate climate change itself.

Yes, I know that, my views on reparation I have already stated, it is directly linked to where we are now, as I said, if we cannot even agree on this urgent action now and the forces that have led us here, you can whistle for reparations.

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

A101 wrote:

Climate change is serious, but reparations to poorer nations is just a money grabbing scheme

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Yes, I know that, my views on reparation I have already stated, it is directly linked to where we are now, as I said, if we cannot even agree on this urgent action now and the forces that have led us here, you can whistle for reparations.

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

The adaptation folks have been around for years and years. At least in the US they're almost exclusively funded by oil money and sketchy PACs.
It's always been a misdirection attempt to prevent countries from taking any real action, publish awful white papers that play down the risk and act like technology will just curb the need to respond - it's a lobbying front for oil.

A101 wrote:

Carbon trading schemes are just another ponzi scheme dreamed up to increase taxes on the ordinary people

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Climate change is serious, but reparations to poorer nations is just a money grabbing scheme

No, it is not, it is just paying for damages caused by polluting. If one flies, let's say Sydney to London, one passenger admits 6.1 t of carbon, to put that into perspective, an average household in the Netherlands admits around 20t a year. Pakistan is claiming over 30bn in damages from the floods, and that is just one natural disaster linked to climate change. So basically the poor farmer in Pakistan is effectively paying for releasing carbon with the destruction of his farm. Wouldn't it be only fair if the person causing the damages by flying, be responsible for paying? That's in very simplistic ways, the mechanism behind it.

The question is answered now. Let's put it to bed and now look at how we need to implement it.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Carbon trading schemes are just another ponzi scheme dreamed up to increase taxes on the ordinary people

No, it's not, it is using an economic principle to change the behavior of ordinary people. As you said yourself in the title, Climate change is serious, so we need to act accordingly, wouldn't you say?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Climate change is serious, but reparations to poorer nations is just a money grabbing scheme

No, it is not, it is just paying for damages caused by polluting. If one flies, let's say Sydney to London, one passenger admits 6.1 t of carbon, to put that into perspective, an average household in the Netherlands admits around 20t a year. Pakistan is claiming over 30bn in damages from the floods, and that is just one natural disaster linked to climate change. So basically the poor farmer in Pakistan is effectively paying for releasing carbon with the destruction of his farm. Wouldn't it be only fair if the person causing the damages by flying, be responsible for paying? That's in very simplistic ways, the mechanism behind it.

The question is answered now. Let's put it to bed and now look at how we need to implement it.

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Yes, I know that, my views on reparation I have already stated, it is directly linked to where we are now, as I said, if we cannot even agree on this urgent action now and the forces that have led us here, you can whistle for reparations.

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

The adaptation folks have been around for years and years. At least in the US they're almost exclusively funded by oil money and sketchy PACs.
It's always been a misdirection attempt to prevent countries from taking any real action, publish awful white papers that play down the risk and act like technology will just curb the need to respond - it's a lobbying front for oil.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Climate change is serious, but reparations to poorer nations is just a money grabbing scheme

No, it is not, it is just paying for damages caused by polluting. If one flies, let's say Sydney to London, one passenger admits 6.1 t of carbon, to put that into perspective, an average household in the Netherlands admits around 20t a year. Pakistan is claiming over 30bn in damages from the floods, and that is just one natural disaster linked to climate change. So basically the poor farmer in Pakistan is effectively paying for releasing carbon with the destruction of his farm. Wouldn't it be only fair if the person causing the damages by flying, be responsible for paying? That's in very simplistic ways, the mechanism behind it.

The question is answered now. Let's put it to bed and now look at how we need to implement it.

par13del wrote:

If it really is not about money and making air travel a sin tax, why not abolish flying to save mankind? If medical facilities are swamped treating folks with lung issues from smoking, ban smoking, don't tax it, after all, if the tax is successful the industry will die right, so if about health....

c933103 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

My understanding is that, in year 2022, there are now a group of people who consider it is already "too late" to avert climate change, and thus think the focus should be on helping poor countries dealing with the conssequences instead of still trying to avoid the "already certain to arrive" catastrophe.

The adaptation folks have been around for years and years. At least in the US they're almost exclusively funded by oil money and sketchy PACs.
It's always been a misdirection attempt to prevent countries from taking any real action, publish awful white papers that play down the risk and act like technology will just curb the need to respond - it's a lobbying front for oil.

That make sense. However talking point of some of those people I was referring to aren't even saying technology will work, they are just saying things won't work and we are all doomed regardless.

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

The adaptation folks have been around for years and years. At least in the US they're almost exclusively funded by oil money and sketchy PACs.
It's always been a misdirection attempt to prevent countries from taking any real action, publish awful white papers that play down the risk and act like technology will just curb the need to respond - it's a lobbying front for oil.

That make sense. However talking point of some of those people I was referring to aren't even saying technology will work, they are just saying things won't work and we are all doomed regardless.

I mean, they're not wrong.

Wet bulb heat events are probably 10-15 years off, but heatwaves could render entire portions of the globe around the equator functionally uninhabitable. The Pakistan floods are a pretty good example of some of the escalating natural disasters that are already becoming more prevalent... how many record-breaking hurricanes have we had in the last ten years? One after another after another.

It's pretty grim to be an official in India, Bangladesh, etc., facing the prospect that you don't have the wealth or slightly more developed economy that might help shield the Gulf States from the worst, and tens or hundreds of millions of people that with a slight sea level rise or increase in temperatures will have their lives or livelihoods wiped out.

The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, explores a lot of the differences in outcomes based on geography, in a fairly well researched and entertaining fiction setting.

Millions if not billions will die from climate change, the effects are already here. Right now it feels like we're fiddling with the dial on just how many hundreds of millions.

c933103 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why would China change because of Australia if it would not. China has shown it will only reduce when its in its own interests to do so. It’s building how many new coal fired power stations compared to how many is Australia decommissioning without replacement. Solar and wind cannot compete for coal in base load power

What people who trumpet this line forget to add is China are also closing down hundreds of older less efficient dirtier power plants and replacing them with newer more efficient power plants.

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2127 ... r-capacity

Your link explicitly
spelled out the reason. Overcapacity and air pollution.
And also note China's worsened relationship with Australia.

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.

Anyway, this isn't about colonization, since a country like the US that, well, is itself a colony, is expected to give money not receive it. My main issue isn't with the money giving, it's with the political situation in most of these countries, that means the money will not end up doing anything good, it might even make things worse.

Phosphorus wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.

Anyway, this isn't about colonization, since a country like the US that, well, is itself a colony, is expected to give money not receive it. My main issue isn't with the money giving, it's with the political situation in most of these countries, that means the money will not end up doing anything good, it might even make things worse.

You mean these fellas, who were paying, at a gunpoint, for generations, to France, for buying their own freedom from their slaveholders:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/read ... ments.html

I mean, tbh, Haiti wasn't the nicest place to be, for quite some time, and Papa Doc, while not a Pol Pot yet, was a very unpleasant character. But let's look at the root of their problem, OK?

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Per Capita is a flawed matrix to use

It's less flawed than blithely comparing two countries with populations of 1.4 billion and 25 million. That's just ludicrous.

Also to add the context about the post




https://www.npr.org/2019/11/23/77598689 ... s-a-factor

https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/ ... -security/


For Sogavare climate is just a vessel to grab more money but the real motivation was to delay the national elections

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-08/

Hence the secret security pact with China....

bit like the Pacific Island countries putting the squeeze on Australia over climate and then running to China who emits more carbon every 16 days than Australia does in a year

e]

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

It's less flawed than blithely comparing two countries with populations of 1.4 billion and 25 million. That's just ludicrous.

Also to add the context about the post




https://www.npr.org/2019/11/23/77598689 ... s-a-factor

https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/ ... -security/


For Sogavare climate is just a vessel to grab more money but the real motivation was to delay the national elections

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-08/

Hence the secret security pact with China....

bit like the Pacific Island countries putting the squeeze on Australia over climate and then running to China who emits more carbon every 16 days than Australia does in a year

e]

Really? Claiming the moral high ground on climate change? China emits a lot of carbon to produce products for the western world, very much including Australia. And the emissions from flying all over the globe, aren't included in those numbers.

Anyhow, per capita: [url=https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/]Australia: 17,1ton and China 7,38tonp/url]. Or 2,3times as much. So don't know what the moral high ground would be based on.

The point being, people against this idea are looking for all kinds of excuses not to change their behavior and not taking any responsibility for their own emissions and the historic emissions from their country or countries in some cases.

c933103 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Also to add the context about the post




https://www.npr.org/2019/11/23/77598689 ... s-a-factor

https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/ ... -security/


For Sogavare climate is just a vessel to grab more money but the real motivation was to delay the national elections

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-08/

Hence the secret security pact with China....

Really? Claiming the moral high ground on climate change? China emits a lot of carbon to produce products for the western world, very much including Australia. And the emissions from flying all over the globe, aren't included in those numbers.

Anyhow, per capita: [url=https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/]Australia: 17,1ton and China 7,38tonp/url]. Or 2,3times as much. So don't know what the moral high ground would be based on.

The point being, people against this idea are looking for all kinds of excuses not to change their behavior and not taking any responsibility for their own emissions and the historic emissions from their country or countries in some cases.

Problem is such kind of financial fund is not going to help the people they are intended to help if the money are simply give to relevant national governments. The people might even end up worse off due to there being more money popping up unpopular local governments. And then developed countries being made to produce such sort of payment might also create a sense among taxpayers that "why should we offer extra help to developing countries bow that our taxes already go to them", and refuse to adhere to proposals calling for help with more drastic cut in carbon emissions.

c933103 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Also to add the context about the post




https://www.npr.org/2019/11/23/77598689 ... s-a-factor

https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/ ... -security/


For Sogavare climate is just a vessel to grab more money but the real motivation was to delay the national elections

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-08/

Hence the secret security pact with China....

Really? Claiming the moral high ground on climate change? China emits a lot of carbon to produce products for the western world, very much including Australia. And the emissions from flying all over the globe, aren't included in those numbers.

Anyhow, per capita: [url=https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/]Australia: 17,1ton and China 7,38tonp/url]. Or 2,3times as much. So don't know what the moral high ground would be based on.

The point being, people against this idea are looking for all kinds of excuses not to change their behavior and not taking any responsibility for their own emissions and the historic emissions from their country or countries in some cases.

Problem is such kind of financial fund is not going to help the people they are intended to help if the money are simply give to relevant national governments. The people might even end up worse off due to there being more money popping up unpopular local governments. And then developed countries being made to produce such sort of payment might also create a sense among taxpayers that "why should we offer extra help to developing countries bow that our taxes already go to them", and refuse to adhere to proposals calling for help with more drastic cut in carbon emissions.

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

The adaptation folks have been around for years and years. At least in the US they're almost exclusively funded by oil money and sketchy PACs.
It's always been a misdirection attempt to prevent countries from taking any real action, publish awful white papers that play down the risk and act like technology will just curb the need to respond - it's a lobbying front for oil.

That make sense. However talking point of some of those people I was referring to aren't even saying technology will work, they are just saying things won't work and we are all doomed regardless.

I mean, they're not wrong.

Wet bulb heat events are probably 10-15 years off, but heatwaves could render entire portions of the globe around the equator functionally uninhabitable. The Pakistan floods are a pretty good example of some of the escalating natural disasters that are already becoming more prevalent... how many record-breaking hurricanes have we had in the last ten years? One after another after another.

It's pretty grim to be an official in India, Bangladesh, etc., facing the prospect that you don't have the wealth or slightly more developed economy that might help shield the Gulf States from the worst, and tens or hundreds of millions of people that with a slight sea level rise or increase in temperatures will have their lives or livelihoods wiped out.

The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, explores a lot of the differences in outcomes based on geography, in a fairly well researched and entertaining fiction setting.

Millions if not billions will die from climate change, the effects are already here. Right now it feels like we're fiddling with the dial on just how many hundreds of millions.

Aesma wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

c933103 wrote:

That make sense. However talking point of some of those people I was referring to aren't even saying technology will work, they are just saying things won't work and we are all doomed regardless.

I mean, they're not wrong.

Wet bulb heat events are probably 10-15 years off, but heatwaves could render entire portions of the globe around the equator functionally uninhabitable. The Pakistan floods are a pretty good example of some of the escalating natural disasters that are already becoming more prevalent... how many record-breaking hurricanes have we had in the last ten years? One after another after another.

It's pretty grim to be an official in India, Bangladesh, etc., facing the prospect that you don't have the wealth or slightly more developed economy that might help shield the Gulf States from the worst, and tens or hundreds of millions of people that with a slight sea level rise or increase in temperatures will have their lives or livelihoods wiped out.

The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, explores a lot of the differences in outcomes based on geography, in a fairly well researched and entertaining fiction setting.

Millions if not billions will die from climate change, the effects are already here. Right now it feels like we're fiddling with the dial on just how many hundreds of millions.

It doesn't seem like governments in Pakistan are even trying, though. For example deforestation is still going on despite having already destroyed most forests, and that increases the risk and severity of floods. Incentives to have less kids should be on the cards, too.

c933103 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.

Anyway, this isn't about colonization, since a country like the US that, well, is itself a colony, is expected to give money not receive it. My main issue isn't with the money giving, it's with the political situation in most of these countries, that means the money will not end up doing anything good, it might even make things worse.

You mean these fellas, who were paying, at a gunpoint, for generations, to France, for buying their own freedom from their slaveholders:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/read ... ments.html

I mean, tbh, Haiti wasn't the nicest place to be, for quite some time, and Papa Doc, while not a Pol Pot yet, was a very unpleasant character. But let's look at the root of their problem, OK?

You somehow think it is altruistic, for a country to demand another to pay another country money to recognize its independence?
And how is that related to climate change reparation?

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.
...

bennett123 wrote:

What is your solution?.

ElPistolero wrote:

They’ve already agreed to set up the fund. There are many ways to monitor how it’s used, and cut it off if it’s misused.

Not really sure what you’re trying to argue anyhow; that nobody should help people explicitly suffering from climate catastrophes because their governments would rather steal the money than help them?

The alternative being what? Sit aside and let them suffer?

Maybe stop looking down on these folk because of prejudices and stereotypes of developing countries in general (some of them know how to pull themselves together during crises), and consider acknowledging that real human beings are actually suffering. And maybe consider that some of these apparently uniformly corrupt government officials (because, after all, every official in a developing country must be morally dubious) might forgo an S class to help them.

Aesma wrote:

It doesn't seem like governments in Pakistan are even trying, though. For example deforestation is still going on despite having already destroyed most forests, and that increases the risk and severity of floods. Incentives to have less kids should be on the cards, too.

bluecrew wrote:

I'm not saying what they're doing today is defensible. I'm saying not doing something and bringing them along with us is going to ultimately be catastrophic.

I'll be honest, I'm not being Pollyanna-ish about this, I don't think we can do it. I don't see countries uniting enough on this, I think the selfish outcomes are just decent enough looking right now that China/India/Pakistan/Brazil/etc. are not incentivized to decarbonize at all. They're just watching the GDP go up and up.

And if we wake up to 50 million dead in a heatwave in Bangladesh, or 2 million dead and displaced by a flood in India, I still don't think we're going to take the increasingly bold actions to narrowly avoid the worst IPCC forecast. We need to be investing in carbon capture and processing, wind, solar, nuclear, battery technology for renewables, not the current approach, which is making excuses for energy companies to frack because natural gas is less awful than oil, not considering nuclear power while gas-fired remains the largest chunk, and offering renewables offsets on home utility bills so we all feel better. Why are we letting Woodside build the Burrup Hub? An oil mining project that's been studied by numerous environmental watchdogs, and categorized as "Australia's Most Polluting Project Ever:"

The UN's lack of actual enforcement authority, perverse incentives for energy companies as much as developing countries, and western handwringing. That's the best we have, 40 years or so into the discussion (I'd say the 1985 hole in the ozone layer started to shift the conversation from the Silent Spring era to the "oh no we can actually like destroy the atmosphere" conversation).

Like I said, not optimistic.

Phosphorus wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You mean these fellas, who were paying, at a gunpoint, for generations, to France, for buying their own freedom from their slaveholders:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/read ... ments.html

I mean, tbh, Haiti wasn't the nicest place to be, for quite some time, and Papa Doc, while not a Pol Pot yet, was a very unpleasant character. But let's look at the root of their problem, OK?

You somehow think it is altruistic, for a country to demand another to pay another country money to recognize its independence?
And how is that related to climate change reparation?

Well, I guess you are reading my argument wrong.
A typical Gallic narrative, as perfectly exemplified above by @Aesma, is "

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.
...

Read it again.
You occupy a part of an island called Hispaniola. You create a slaveholding society, with workforce working under leash, for free.
Slaves rebel and free themselves.

You are not happy, and you force them to pay a fortune, for more than a century, to buy their freedom from you. 'Cause you suffered an economic loss, when slaves stopped being your property, you know.

So we have a rare case, when we CAN know, for sure, whether it would have been better or worse. Because if the French just buggered off, once slaves freed themselves, Haiti would be better off -- than if Haiti had to pay "reparations" to France, for more than a century -- essentially buying freedom from slavery in installments for five generations. Don't you agree?

bluecrew wrote:

Aesma wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

I mean, they're not wrong.

Wet bulb heat events are probably 10-15 years off, but heatwaves could render entire portions of the globe around the equator functionally uninhabitable. The Pakistan floods are a pretty good example of some of the escalating natural disasters that are already becoming more prevalent... how many record-breaking hurricanes have we had in the last ten years? One after another after another.

It's pretty grim to be an official in India, Bangladesh, etc., facing the prospect that you don't have the wealth or slightly more developed economy that might help shield the Gulf States from the worst, and tens or hundreds of millions of people that with a slight sea level rise or increase in temperatures will have their lives or livelihoods wiped out.

The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, explores a lot of the differences in outcomes based on geography, in a fairly well researched and entertaining fiction setting.

Millions if not billions will die from climate change, the effects are already here. Right now it feels like we're fiddling with the dial on just how many hundreds of millions.

It doesn't seem like governments in Pakistan are even trying, though. For example deforestation is still going on despite having already destroyed most forests, and that increases the risk and severity of floods. Incentives to have less kids should be on the cards, too.

I'm not saying what they're doing today is defensible. I'm saying not doing something and bringing them along with us is going to ultimately be catastrophic.

I'll be honest, I'm not being Pollyanna-ish about this, I don't think we can do it. I don't see countries uniting enough on this, I think the selfish outcomes are just decent enough looking right now that China/India/Pakistan/Brazil/etc. are not incentivized to decarbonize at all. They're just watching the GDP go up and up.

And if we wake up to 50 million dead in a heatwave in Bangladesh, or 2 million dead and displaced by a flood in India, I still don't think we're going to take the increasingly bold actions to narrowly avoid the worst IPCC forecast. We need to be investing in carbon capture and processing, wind, solar, nuclear, battery technology for renewables, not the current approach, which is making excuses for energy companies to frack because natural gas is less awful than oil, not considering nuclear power while gas-fired remains the largest chunk, and offering renewables offsets on home utility bills so we all feel better. Why are we letting Woodside build the Burrup Hub? An oil mining project that's been studied by numerous environmental watchdogs, and categorized as "Australia's Most Polluting Project Ever:"

The UN's lack of actual enforcement authority, perverse incentives for energy companies as much as developing countries, and western handwringing. That's the best we have, 40 years or so into the discussion (I'd say the 1985 hole in the ozone layer started to shift the conversation from the Silent Spring era to the "oh no we can actually like destroy the atmosphere" conversation).

Like I said, not optimistic.

c933103 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

c933103 wrote:

You somehow think it is altruistic, for a country to demand another to pay another country money to recognize its independence?
And how is that related to climate change reparation?

Well, I guess you are reading my argument wrong.
A typical Gallic narrative, as perfectly exemplified above by @Aesma, is "

Aesma wrote:

The reasons for colonization were not altruistic, clearly. Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know. France had a colony in the Caribbean named Saint-Domingue, that it lost more than two centuries ago. It has been an independent country since then, the result isn't exactly stellar.
...

Read it again.
You occupy a part of an island called Hispaniola. You create a slaveholding society, with workforce working under leash, for free.
Slaves rebel and free themselves.

You are not happy, and you force them to pay a fortune, for more than a century, to buy their freedom from you. 'Cause you suffered an economic loss, when slaves stopped being your property, you know.

So we have a rare case, when we CAN know, for sure, whether it would have been better or worse. Because if the French just buggered off, once slaves freed themselves, Haiti would be better off -- than if Haiti had to pay "reparations" to France, for more than a century -- essentially buying freedom from slavery in installments for five generations. Don't you agree?

What you suggest as compensation to this would be reparation for slavery instead of reparation for climate change

Phosphorus wrote:

I'm directly challenging the idea that "Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know.". Because we DO know.
Whether this knowledge would lead to reparations -- is another question entirely.
And actually these reparations are neither for climate change nor for slavery -- they would be for gun-point robbery by a colonialist power, whose earlier cunning little plan to force slaves to work for free didn't work out.

Dutchy wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

I'm directly challenging the idea that "Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know.". Because we DO know.
Whether this knowledge would lead to reparations -- is another question entirely.
And actually these reparations are neither for climate change nor for slavery -- they would be for gun-point robbery by a colonialist power, whose earlier cunning little plan to force slaves to work for free didn't work out.

This is a long way away from climate change and compensation for damages from that.

Phosphorus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

I'm directly challenging the idea that "Did it result in a worse economic situation for the places involved that if there was no colonization, I don't know, I don't see how anyone can know.". Because we DO know.
Whether this knowledge would lead to reparations -- is another question entirely.
And actually these reparations are neither for climate change nor for slavery -- they would be for gun-point robbery by a colonialist power, whose earlier cunning little plan to force slaves to work for free didn't work out.

This is a long way away from climate change and compensation for damages from that.

I agree, but the narrative pushed is "we have no idea which way would it be worse -- with us or without us. Look at Haiti -- without us it's hell" -- whereas in reality, we do know, Haiti is hell, in no small part because of them. I take issue with that specific statement, as it's used as a platform for "why is this any of our fault".

c933103 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This is a long way away from climate change and compensation for damages from that.

I agree, but the narrative pushed is "we have no idea which way would it be worse -- with us or without us. Look at Haiti -- without us it's hell" -- whereas in reality, we do know, Haiti is hell, in no small part because of them. I take issue with that specific statement, as it's used as a platform for "why is this any of our fault".

I don't think this sort of argument is meaningful to construct actually. Like one can argue the Pacific island countries are still better off with access to the summary of Global human civilization and knowledge and technology nowadays than being isolated from each others and from outside world by the sheer side of ocean having nothing, but does the summary of human civlization andknowledge and technology mean the Pacific islanders can't get better treatment in the process of interacting with outside world, no matter it is in term of being treated more fairly by foreign powers or if it is being treated with more care when it come to issue of climate change affecting atolls that they live on.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Really? Claiming the moral high ground on climate change? China emits a lot of carbon to produce products for the western world, very much including Australia. And the emissions from flying all over the globe, aren't included in those numbers.

Anyhow, per capita: [url=https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/]Australia: 17,1ton and China 7,38tonp/url]. Or 2,3times as much. So don't know what the moral high ground would be based on.

The point being, people against this idea are looking for all kinds of excuses not to change their behavior and not taking any responsibility for their own emissions and the historic emissions from their country or countries in some cases.

Problem is such kind of financial fund is not going to help the people they are intended to help if the money are simply give to relevant national governments. The people might even end up worse off due to there being more money popping up unpopular local governments. And then developed countries being made to produce such sort of payment might also create a sense among taxpayers that "why should we offer extra help to developing countries bow that our taxes already go to them", and refuse to adhere to proposals calling for help with more drastic cut in carbon emissions.

They’ve already agreed to set up the fund. There are many ways to monitor how it’s used, and cut it off if it’s misused.

Not really sure what you’re trying to argue anyhow; that nobody should help people explicitly suffering from climate catastrophes because their governments would rather steal the money than help them?

The alternative being what? Sit aside and let them suffer?

Maybe stop looking down on these folk because of prejudices and stereotypes of developing countries in general (some of them know how to pull themselves together during crises), and consider acknowledging that real human beings are actually suffering. And maybe consider that some of these apparently uniformly corrupt government officials (because, after all, every official in a developing country must be morally dubious) might forgo an S class to help them.

PPVRA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Problem is such kind of financial fund is not going to help the people they are intended to help if the money are simply give to relevant national governments. The people might even end up worse off due to there being more money popping up unpopular local governments. And then developed countries being made to produce such sort of payment might also create a sense among taxpayers that "why should we offer extra help to developing countries bow that our taxes already go to them", and refuse to adhere to proposals calling for help with more drastic cut in carbon emissions.

They’ve already agreed to set up the fund. There are many ways to monitor how it’s used, and cut it off if it’s misused.

Not really sure what you’re trying to argue anyhow; that nobody should help people explicitly suffering from climate catastrophes because their governments would rather steal the money than help them?

The alternative being what? Sit aside and let them suffer?

Maybe stop looking down on these folk because of prejudices and stereotypes of developing countries in general (some of them know how to pull themselves together during crises), and consider acknowledging that real human beings are actually suffering. And maybe consider that some of these apparently uniformly corrupt government officials (because, after all, every official in a developing country must be morally dubious) might forgo an S class to help them.

If the money goes to governments, it will absolutely not help people hurt by anything. It’s far more likely to worsen corruption in developing countries, which is a major reason holding back their own political and economic development.

Corruption is not a stereotype. It’s very real, widespread and creates massive social and economic problems.

ElPistolero wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

They’ve already agreed to set up the fund. There are many ways to monitor how it’s used, and cut it off if it’s misused.

Not really sure what you’re trying to argue anyhow; that nobody should help people explicitly suffering from climate catastrophes because their governments would rather steal the money than help them?

The alternative being what? Sit aside and let them suffer?

Maybe stop looking down on these folk because of prejudices and stereotypes of developing countries in general (some of them know how to pull themselves together during crises), and consider acknowledging that real human beings are actually suffering. And maybe consider that some of these apparently uniformly corrupt government officials (because, after all, every official in a developing country must be morally dubious) might forgo an S class to help them.

If the money goes to governments, it will absolutely not help people hurt by anything. It’s far more likely to worsen corruption in developing countries, which is a major reason holding back their own political and economic development.

Corruption is not a stereotype. It’s very real, widespread and creates massive social and economic problems.

Nah. It’s a lazy stereotype.

This notion that every dollar that goes in will be gobbled by some corrupt lout doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. None of them should have any functioning infrastructure by that logic, what with the corrupt officials siphoning off every available dollar.

It’s not that corruption isn’t a problem; it is. But the notion that none of that aid will make it to those who need it the most, is for the birds.

At most, we can debate the efficiency and wastage of aid (to factors such as corruption), but those aren’t un-addressable in and off themselves.

c933103 wrote:

Even if efficiency of a project isn't dead 0%, funneling money through a corrupted system can still do more harm than good compares to the lack of such money. Like for example sending Myanmar government 1 billion USD might ultimately help them increase the living standard of people in the country but at what cost to the people living there as well as people around them?