ElPistolero wrote:c933103 wrote:ElPistolero wrote:
Haven’t a clue. Don’t keep up with academic fads. Is it?
Not related. Anarchy primitivism refer to the ridiculous idea that advocate an anarchic and primitive society for humanity, which several features of such ideology can be seen in your post, most notably include rejecting industrial revolution by describing it as captive to countries that failed to catch up with it industrially, and describing it as if those places which failed to develop themselves are being taken advantage of to achieve this. Industrial revolution yes it depends on a society that have sufficient resources to develop new technology, yet such state of excess resources caused by ruling other people is not an uniquely European phenomenon with empire being established all around the world in the past, and the only differences is whether people in these empire successfully bring the world to a new stage ending colonization and exploitation with technological development.
The "north-south divide" is hardly unbridgeable, be it on climate change or any other issues. But it require an open, internationalized trade and investment environment for investment and infrastructure to expand, like what happened in much of East Asia in late 20th century. Most of those "Southern" countries still have governments and sometimes even their people who have preglobalization mindset and reject such modernization and that's why countries like India is growing slower than China's reform and opening up era.
Why do you think the problem is "do as I say not as I do" when developing countries already receive more lenient climate targets? Not to mention you are painting China as if they are some sort of powerless entity that would just follow what Australia do, like do you think Texas will do something because California did ir? Such sort of thinking is Western centrism that overthink the influence of Western countries. The best way to make China decarbonize is to make fossil fuel suppliers collectively spite on Mr. Xi so that they will become hesitate to buy fuel from these countries. There are no other reasons why China's behavior must be influenced by Australia and other developed countries. Chinese government simply see actions against climate change as a populist way for politicians in the West gain votes among their supporters despite China itself is still increasingly hit by climate change, it didn't bother their ruling class who have money to overcome such zort of disasters much better than ordinary persons.
Nah, that’s your straw man. You can fight it to your hearts content.
I don’t think the Industrial Revolution is captive to anything; just acknowledging that it’s playing out at different times in different countries, and developing countries aren’t particularly keen on accepting the relatively higher costs of acquiring green technologies, or delaying development until they can afford to. I don’t see how that relates to support for “primitivism” (whatever that is) or anarchy.
I’ll stand by my stance that the divide is unbridgeable even if CoP 27 comes up with some superficial agreement. The developing countries aren’t going to accept any additional costs. They’ll just wield the per capita stick to fend them off. I predict that they’re going to argue that industrializing in a more climate friendly way is too expensive and will cost them too much by way of sacrifices on development, but if anyone else wants to foot the bill, they will.
And I’m confident that this is what will transpire. Because it’s been like this for 15 years now.
On the merits of “do as I say, not as I do”, the manner in which that can - and is - wielded on this issue both domestically and in international negotiations is self-evident for all to see. It doesn’t just apply to China. It applies to the entire south.
Firstly, to clarify earlier, on India and aid objections when they have a nuclear program, I did not mean for power, a positive for climate but weapons.
Rightly or not it’s a stick used to beat the idea of ‘why we should not cut foreign aid’ in general, which on so many levels even beyond climate, is bad for the UK.
History or otherwise, the science that came with the industrial revolution which got us here, will get us at least stabilize and eventually maybe out of it.
Yet here we are, in the UK, with a government that for years has banned on shore wind because a few NIMBYs with more economic therefore political clout have demanded it, jokes about the British weather aside, you do see increasing numbers of homes and commercial properties with solar panels of the roofs, if only a National program, public/private partnership, via tax incentives or whatever nudge or lever of choice, to make this the norm on most suitable buildings.
It’s become a political issue, with the cost of living crisis, about home insulation which is pitiful here, terrible in costs for those most affected and of course a source of more energy use.
They are even making it hard for land owners like farmers for instance, to put solar farms on their own properties for god knows why.
Oh wait, the man who tried to incredibly ram fracking in, contrary to their own manifesto as many of their own voters hated it, useless and dangerous in the UK and about as popular as a turd on your dinner plate generally, one Jacob Rees Mogg, has financial interests in fossil fuel extraction. God I loathe them, him in particular.
They came to office in 2010, albeit initially by coalition with those who they would be unwittingly played as they were by joining it in the terms they did, long took climate seriously. First chance they got, Cameron and Osborne dropped, their words, the ‘green crap’.
On the brighter side, unlike China, we can change our leaders, just as the concerns around reproductive rights in the US, was a major factor in the 350% increase in turnout amongst the younger voters in the US mid terms, we know for obvious reasons that climate is a very major concern, let’s be honest here, the reason why a determined if eccentric young Swedish woman can draw attention to the crisis and without some of the extreme disruptive acts some here are doing, which while it does draw attention also alienates many, with of course the vote too, the real reason the Swedish girl attracted such scorn and opprobrium from some, in part some politicians (many no doubt with a vested personal interest in fossil fuels), was simple, this girl, little more than a child, made her detractors
look like the kids in the room .
Well I was a kid once, I mentioned that not great school of four decades ago, at least I also learned there, in chemistry, not a great subject for me, for one with a in my view not great teacher but not so poor he could not explain the correlation between for instance, industrial output and acid rain, CFC’s and the ozone layer, what potentially more Co2 in the atmosphere could do.
Forty f*****g years ago!
Yet denial of science big oil knew about in the 1960’s as has been revealed recently, them lining the pockets of, in particular US lawmakers, the increasingly anti science slant of some US administration’s mainly of one party, since they started courting the evangelicals vote in 1980, ironically the same one who set up the EPA a few years before.
Of course the younger voters are angry, it’s their future under threat, worse in developing nations but ultimately for us all.
Like I said, just to clarify.....