https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/ ... tions-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

Reads like an imperialist fetish fantasy.

Britain is far from its imperial days - it's time to grow up and seriously engage the community of nations, as opposed to the past 6 years of government meltdowns, withdrawal or failure to meet international obligations, generally shaky instability, and an economy contracting at a rate that feels like Japan in the '90s.

"We did this 100 years ago FOR you, so shut up about your little floods" sounds exactly like Spitting Image Thatcher. Unfortunately, clowny editorials like this don't exactly... enrich the opinion of the UK from those abroad.

Take it seriously. Enough joking around. We'd love you back if you even bothered taking yourselves seriously, but otherwise, we don't need the opinion from a rainy island with the political stability of a Sub-Saharan country with over half of their media dedicated to some vision of the Imperial Lion ripping the neck out of an Indian worker.

And umm... just to add insult to injury, you didn't invent half of those things. Instead, your country made an insane profit over the past hundred years selling every scrap of innovation to the Global South, which is probably one of the only reasons the UK has hung on as a relevant country thus far.

bluecrew wrote:

Reads like an imperialist fetish fantasy.

Britain is far from its imperial days - it's time to grow up and seriously engage the community of nations, as opposed to the past 6 years of government meltdowns, withdrawal or failure to meet international obligations, generally shaky instability, and an economy contracting at a rate that feels like Japan in the '90s.

"We did this 100 years ago FOR you, so shut up about your little floods" sounds exactly like Spitting Image Thatcher. Unfortunately, clowny editorials like this don't exactly... enrich the opinion of the UK from those abroad.

Take it seriously. Enough joking around. We'd love you back if you even bothered taking yourselves seriously, but otherwise, we don't need the opinion from a rainy island with the political stability of a Sub-Saharan country with over half of their media dedicated to some vision of the Imperial Lion ripping the neck out of an Indian worker.

And umm... just to add insult to injury, you didn't invent half of those things. Instead, your country made an insane profit over the past hundred years selling every scrap of innovation to the Global South, which is probably one of the only reasons the UK has hung on as a relevant country thus far.

Someone's has their knickers in a knot

Seems to me that like all things someone looking for a handout just like China as the US is asking for China to also stump up and moving its status from developing country to developed country China not liking that idea at all as it is expected if not already surpassed the World Bank classifications for high-income economies and still being regarded as a developing Country

As for these countries already receive UK aid it's more like Oliver, "please sir I want some more"

Reparations are a money grabbing scheme? I'm shooketh.

A101 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Reads like an imperialist fetish fantasy.

Britain is far from its imperial days - it's time to grow up and seriously engage the community of nations, as opposed to the past 6 years of government meltdowns, withdrawal or failure to meet international obligations, generally shaky instability, and an economy contracting at a rate that feels like Japan in the '90s.

"We did this 100 years ago FOR you, so shut up about your little floods" sounds exactly like Spitting Image Thatcher. Unfortunately, clowny editorials like this don't exactly... enrich the opinion of the UK from those abroad.

Take it seriously. Enough joking around. We'd love you back if you even bothered taking yourselves seriously, but otherwise, we don't need the opinion from a rainy island with the political stability of a Sub-Saharan country with over half of their media dedicated to some vision of the Imperial Lion ripping the neck out of an Indian worker.

And umm... just to add insult to injury, you didn't invent half of those things. Instead, your country made an insane profit over the past hundred years selling every scrap of innovation to the Global South, which is probably one of the only reasons the UK has hung on as a relevant country thus far.

Someone's has their knickers in a knot

Seems to me that like all things someone looking for a handout just like China as the US is asking for China to also stump up and moving its status from developing country to developed country China not liking that idea at all as it is expected if not already surpassed the World Bank classifications for high-income economies and still being regarded as a developing Country

As for these countries already receive UK aid it's more like Oliver, "please sir I want some more"

What can I say, defenses of imperialism from an island of now broke shopkeepers gets me agitated. I hate the Telegraph.

I'm not saying I necessarily even support climate reparations - I think we're better off trying to solve the issue with a Moonshot style program involving all developed and developing countries that are willing to participate. I'm pretty circumspect on pumping money into Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, not because they're not horrifically impacted by climate change (they are), but because I can see just about all of those governments just taking the money and doing nothing, or just blatantly ignoring treaty agreements and continuing to pollute in excess.

Unfortunately none of these countries have yet shown themselves to be participatory partners... but then again neither has the west... Nobody is taking climate seriously, it's going to take a couple mass catastrophies.

A101 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Reads like an imperialist fetish fantasy.

Britain is far from its imperial days - it's time to grow up and seriously engage the community of nations, as opposed to the past 6 years of government meltdowns, withdrawal or failure to meet international obligations, generally shaky instability, and an economy contracting at a rate that feels like Japan in the '90s.

"We did this 100 years ago FOR you, so shut up about your little floods" sounds exactly like Spitting Image Thatcher. Unfortunately, clowny editorials like this don't exactly... enrich the opinion of the UK from those abroad.

Take it seriously. Enough joking around. We'd love you back if you even bothered taking yourselves seriously, but otherwise, we don't need the opinion from a rainy island with the political stability of a Sub-Saharan country with over half of their media dedicated to some vision of the Imperial Lion ripping the neck out of an Indian worker.

And umm... just to add insult to injury, you didn't invent half of those things. Instead, your country made an insane profit over the past hundred years selling every scrap of innovation to the Global South, which is probably one of the only reasons the UK has hung on as a relevant country thus far.

Someone's has their knickers in a knot

Seems to me that like all things someone looking for a handout just like China as the US is asking for China to also stump up and moving its status from developing country to developed country China not liking that idea at all as it is expected if not already surpassed the World Bank classifications for high-income economies and still being regarded as a developing Country

As for these countries already receive UK aid it's more like Oliver, "please sir I want some more"

Ah Pearson, and her childish articles.

This particular article made me think about British India’s Salt Laws. “Indians” (including Pakistanis) were subject to heavy taxes if they did the ..err.. climate friendly thing of harvesting and collecting salt through evaporation. As part of their wealth extraction strategy, the British imposed these taxes to force Indians to buy British salt. In essence, why let Indians consume cheap, free salt (an essential good in a hot country) when you could charge them multiples and send it to London. The irony, in this environmental context, was that salt was delivered using - you guessed it - coal powered steamships. Why not wreck the environment for a quick buck, eh?

Not sure why Pearson left that part out. Let’s be charitable and assume she didn’t have a clue. Most Brits don’t actually seem to know what their country was up to back then. Probably some kind of emotional self-protective impulse given how sordid much of that history is.

Either way, stuff like that makes these Oliver Twist references a bit silly. It’s true that the UK didn’t beg for money; it just killed people instead. Regardless, whatever little it’s paid out in “aid”, is a fraction of what it took in as “taxes” during the imperial age. I bet all the aid provided to Pakistan doesn’t even cover a fraction of the salt tax revenue that went in the other direction.

Which is to say, until the UK education system actually catches up with colonialism (the way the Germans and Americans have with the darker chapters of their history), might be a good idea not to quote the likes of Pearson on historical issues. This forum has people from around the world. We know what the British empire was actually about.

This type of condescending nonsense from Pearson and her ilk doesn’t go unnoticed; it has contributed to Beijing’s geopolitical inroads into British colonies. Pakistan is an apt example; who matters more in Islamabad today: Beijing or London? The same can be said of Kuala Lumpur, Dhaka, Colombo, New Delhi, Nairobi, Pretoria and Lagos….to name a few.

In any case, reparations are about acknowledging responsibility, not necessarily making financial amends. Even a reparation of GBP 1 would be anm powerful statement. Granted, like most folk, I think transfer of technology makes more sense than purely financial reparations. But that seems to be a minefield in itself for reasons that have never been clear in the environmental context.

My POV about sending money to developing countries is simple : has it worked so far ? If the answer is no, then we need to do something else. Providing the help directly, mostly (which is already done, of course).

The biggest emphasis should go on education, in particular for girls. If a country can't feed its current population without massive food imports, then it should categorically not have a growing population.

I think the article is being sarcastic. However there is an overall truth behind it : you can't blame us for our way of life, if all you want is to have the same way of life. A country where everyone lives in huts and is happy about it but has its millenia old way of life disturbed by climate change might have an argument. A country with more and more cars, computers, planes, air conditioning, etc., not really.

As for China's inroads, it's mostly because it loaned billions, no questions asked. Now it's either writing off the investment or taking control of valuable stuff in the countries it "helped".

Aesma wrote:

I think the article is being sarcastic. However there is an overall truth behind it : you can't blame us for our way of life, if all you want is to have the same way of life. A country where everyone lives in huts and is happy about it but has its millenia old way of life disturbed by climate change might have an argument. A country with more and more cars, computers, planes, air conditioning, etc., not really..

Not really. Notwithstanding that many of these countries have large swathes of agrarian communities, the fact that they want air conditioning (with temperatures hitting 50 degrees no less) is about as vacuous an argument as they come.

But it does sum up the issue cleanly; they’re judged to a different standard (as climate change impact goes) for trying to acquire the same standard of living as others before them, and must accept higher costs for it too. It might make sense if one doesn’t want to acknowledge the havoc their own countries wreaked around the world before these nations became independent. But it won’t get much traction with those countries.

We might as well argue that France deserves credit for leaving the francophonie so institutionally and economically weak, that they’re still rebuilding and aren’t contributing as much to climate change as much as they might have, if they’d never encountered the wrecking ball that was French “civilization” at all.

Aesma wrote:

As for China's inroads, it's mostly because it loaned billions, no questions asked. Now it's either writing off the investment or taking control of valuable stuff in the countries it "helped".

And because it comes without the condescending attitude. It’s not like aid - regardless of the source - is altruistic. The difference is the tone deaf moral posturing that comes with it that, like in this article, is based on a fundamentally different versions of the same history.

Reality is, after two centuries of colonization driven exclusively by a sense of racial superiority, these countries aren’t convinced that the west has gotten those prejudices and superiority complexes out of its system. These types of silly articles don’t help. China starts with a winning hand because of it.

It’s a recipe for a north-south divide. At least until the threat to the global north becomes as existential as it is for parts of the south.

The Telegraph, always known as the Torygraph, has gone full on mental in the past, you’ve guessed it, 6 years.
As for Pearson, she’s writing for them now, a step up I guess from the Tory tabloids and magazine programs for morons?
A real life Glenda Slagg, Private Eye’s long running over decades caricature of a certain type of columnist.

All nations have, as stated, their dark history, it is hard to believe that 15-20 years ago the UK was a global leader in aid and engagement with poorer nations, at all levels, from direct aid to culture.
For instance slavery where the UK was deeply implicated, being second only to Portugal in numbers ‘shipped’, however after the ‘lefty, metropolitan elite’ of the day changed the law and the Royal Navy set about enforcing it, everywhere. That too is lost to history, not to wash over what went on before though.
Even Cameron came to office committed to retaining the UK’s level of overseas aid, amongst the highest per GDP in the world, by god the tabloids and Telegraph, as well as the UKIP wing of the party hated it and they are running the show now.
Or I should say for now.

You can blame the UK for for starting the industrial revolution, as well as for the past 300+ years having a very high rate of scientific discoveries per capita albeit less good in the past century of commercially exploiting them, someone was going to be first.
After the Suez fiasco in 1956, there was a sea change in attitudes, from engagement towards Europe and a realistic attitude to where we are in the world, something that had actually started in 1947 but stalled when first a worn out Churchill coming back and decolonization stalling, to his physically and mentally ill successor Eden who did Suez (with France and Israel).

Though I think we handled decolonization better than both France and Portugal, the experience of the former informing the rapid pace post Suez under an enlightened Conservative Iain McCloed, which made him less than popular with many in his party, his PM Harold Macmillan telling the Apartheid South African parliament in 1961, that the game was up for white minority rule in Africa. Which went down like a a bowl of cold vomit.
Hard to believe it’s the same party as in power now, well frankly it isn’t. They and by extension we, have regressed.

Sixty years, almost exactly after Suez, those lessons were forgotten, with contempt.
And as others have stated, we are where we are, the only comfort being polling now shows most regard it as a mistake and the party responsible have the stench of decay about them.
That was a failure of education, too many here do not know their own history, massive education cuts in the past dozen years and curriculum changes by the likes of Micheal Gove deciding what is taught making it worse, deliberately as most of them are from the 7% that went to Private schools, the most notorious, Eton, (where Johnson went), still it seems being designed to train imperial administrators.

I went to a pretty poor comprehensive in the late 70’s/early 80’s, I enjoyed history and we had a good teacher though.

Reparations are a tricky subject, how far do you go back for a start?
I favor action in concert with the nations concerned on a practical level, rather than cash to governments some of whom do not have a stellar reputation themselves.

Governments and people are free to feel how they want in these countries, same as us. Having an attitude goes both ways, and having an attitude while begging for money usually doesn't work.

A bit off topic but the military junta in Mali trash talked France including at the UN, saying it was illegally in Mali. They had made a deal with the Wagner group to fight jihadists. As a result, France left Mali. Now the Wagner group is leaving to fight in Ukraine, and suddenly the junta wants to talk to France again...

I agree that developing countries are judged by a different standard : they can pollute all they like using the dirtiest sources of energy, just as we are banning them in our countries. It would make more sense if most of the money we might provide went to build renewable energy solutions.

Aesma wrote:

Governments and people are free to feel how they want in these countries, same as us. Having an attitude goes both ways, and having an attitude while begging for money usually doesn't work.

A bit off topic but the military junta in Mali trash talked France including at the UN, saying it was illegally in Mali. They had made a deal with the Wagner group to fight jihadists. As a result, France left Mali. Now the Wagner group is leaving to fight in Ukraine, and suddenly the junta wants to talk to France again...

I agree that developing countries are judged by a different standard : they can pollute all they like using the dirtiest sources of energy, just as we are banning them in our countries. It would make more sense if most of the money we might provide went to build renewable energy solutions.

I agree, that’s a practical solution. Provide the means, along the lines of of renewable technologies.
With Mali, how the hell was that regime, not elected, taken seriously at the UN?
France was invited in desperation by their predecessors, to save them from Islamist terrorists.
Likely Wagner or their paymasters bribed them.
It’s things like that damage the cash reparations case.

Aesma wrote:

Governments and people are free to feel how they want in these countries, same as us. Having an attitude goes both ways, and having an attitude while begging for money usually doesn't work.

A bit off topic but the military junta in Mali trash talked France including at the UN, saying it was illegally in Mali. They had made a deal with the Wagner group to fight jihadists. As a result, France left Mali. Now the Wagner group is leaving to fight in Ukraine, and suddenly the junta wants to talk to France again...

I agree that developing countries are judged by a different standard : they can pollute all they like using the dirtiest sources of energy, just as we are banning them in our countries. It would make more sense if most of the money we might provide went to build renewable energy solutions.

Reparations =\= begging.

They’re compensation for damage done. Trying to give them a negative moral tinge is a bit absurd, given the wealth that the north accumulated from them using methods no more sophisticated than, well, mass murder.

As for the pollution, yes, it’s true that there’s a lot of pollution. Just as there was in Europe when they were at a similar phase of development. Remember London and its fatal pea soup fog? That there was no one to judge them then doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. It’s nice that you can ban afford to ban them now; in other countries, that means leaving people mired in poverty.

People might well have been able to afford these bans now if it weren’t for colonization. Or are we supposed to pretend that the whole thing wasn’t a mass exercise in looting that enriched countries like France at the expense of the colonies, albeit in much worse institutional and economic state than other colonizers?

Like I said, this is going to remain an exercise in tautology because the south isn’t interested in the moral posturing. And with every day that goes by, it has less to lose. People are already dying. Problem is, we in the north have more and more to lose now. It’s coming for us next.

But anyway, I’d stay away from stupid terms like “begging”, given France’s own sordid history in its colonies. It is, perhaps, a sign of progress that they’re now begging for money, rather than their lives, as was the case in French controlled territories just a century ago.

Or maybe these colonized countries should just ask countries like France for compensation for having to send troops and material to bail them out during WWII after that staggering display of military incompetence. That way, we can frame it as payments for services rendered, rather than “begging”.

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Governments and people are free to feel how they want in these countries, same as us. Having an attitude goes both ways, and having an attitude while begging for money usually doesn't work.

A bit off topic but the military junta in Mali trash talked France including at the UN, saying it was illegally in Mali. They had made a deal with the Wagner group to fight jihadists. As a result, France left Mali. Now the Wagner group is leaving to fight in Ukraine, and suddenly the junta wants to talk to France again...

I agree that developing countries are judged by a different standard : they can pollute all they like using the dirtiest sources of energy, just as we are banning them in our countries. It would make more sense if most of the money we might provide went to build renewable energy solutions.

I agree, that’s a practical solution. Provide the means, along the lines of of renewable technologies.
With Mali, how the hell was that regime, not elected, taken seriously at the UN?
France was invited in desperation by their predecessors, to save them from Islamist terrorists.
Likely Wagner or their paymasters bribed them.
It’s things like that damage the cash reparations case.

It’s like the 2016 Oxford Union Debate with Shashi Tharoor.

“Reparations” are rarely about an actual amount of money; they’re about acknowledging responsibility for actions in the past.

Comparing it to “begging” just highlights the scale of the disconnect here.

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Governments and people are free to feel how they want in these countries, same as us. Having an attitude goes both ways, and having an attitude while begging for money usually doesn't work.

A bit off topic but the military junta in Mali trash talked France including at the UN, saying it was illegally in Mali. They had made a deal with the Wagner group to fight jihadists. As a result, France left Mali. Now the Wagner group is leaving to fight in Ukraine, and suddenly the junta wants to talk to France again...

I agree that developing countries are judged by a different standard : they can pollute all they like using the dirtiest sources of energy, just as we are banning them in our countries. It would make more sense if most of the money we might provide went to build renewable energy solutions.

I agree, that’s a practical solution. Provide the means, along the lines of of renewable technologies.
With Mali, how the hell was that regime, not elected, taken seriously at the UN?
France was invited in desperation by their predecessors, to save them from Islamist terrorists.
Likely Wagner or their paymasters bribed them.
It’s things like that damage the cash reparations case.

It’s like the 2016 Oxford Union Debate with Shashi Tharoor.

“Reparations” are rarely about an actual amount of money; they’re about acknowledging responsibility for actions in the past.

Comparing it to “begging” just highlights the scale of the disconnect here.

Him! Born in the UK, educated in the West, went to India at a young age, eventually got into into politics for Congress but started agreeing with the nuttier elements of the BJP including their claims to have invented everything including aircraft, he’s far too intelligent to believe that so presumably was trying to save his political skin, which eventually did not work.
As for his assertion that India, before the British arrived, was an economic superpower with 27% of global GDP, how then did a rag tag bunch of chancers called the East India Company take over such a behemoth?
They did it because ‘India’ as we understand what the subcontinent was called then, wasn’t a nation in that sense.
It was divide and rule, paying off local rulers, Imperial control via the British state came later.

Not defending any of it but they were certainly betrayed after WW1 after being promised Dominion status, yet in WW2 raised the largest volunteer army in history, with the implicit agreement, whether Churchill liked it or not, that independence would follow. His blind spot with India wasn’t a factor as he lost in 1945 and the new PM had advocated Indian independence for 20 years.
Yet what happened to the figurehead of the independence campaign Ghandi?
Murdered by his own people, the killers being heroes of the current ruling party which only last week was again raiding and shutting down newspapers they do not like.

Not keen on handing out cash to them, in fact that has sadly galvanized those who have succeeded in getting a government that has slashed foreign aid, from the UK being about the best for that as a portion of GDP, to one of the worst.
Tough to justify to a mainstream audience giving tax £ to a nation with nuclear weapons and a space program.
It’s far more complex than that I know and not even the best example, especially with the climate change issue, still its a message that resonates with people.

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.

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

I agree, that’s a practical solution. Provide the means, along the lines of of renewable technologies.
With Mali, how the hell was that regime, not elected, taken seriously at the UN?
France was invited in desperation by their predecessors, to save them from Islamist terrorists.
Likely Wagner or their paymasters bribed them.
It’s things like that damage the cash reparations case.

It’s like the 2016 Oxford Union Debate with Shashi Tharoor.

“Reparations” are rarely about an actual amount of money; they’re about acknowledging responsibility for actions in the past.

Comparing it to “begging” just highlights the scale of the disconnect here.

Him! Born in the UK, educated in the West, went to India at a young age, eventually got into into politics for Congress but started agreeing with the nuttier elements of the BJP including their claims to have invented everything including aircraft, he’s far too intelligent to believe that so presumably was trying to save his political skin, which eventually did not work.
As for his assertion that India, before the British arrived, was an economic superpower with 27% of global GDP, how then did a rag tag bunch of chancers called the East India Company take over such a behemoth?
They did it because ‘India’ as we understand what the subcontinent was called then, wasn’t a nation in that sense.
It was divide and rule, paying off local rulers, Imperial control via the British state came later.

Not defending any of it but they were certainly betrayed after WW1 after being promised Dominion status, yet in WW2 raised the largest volunteer army in history, with the implicit agreement, whether Churchill liked it or not, that independence would follow. His blind spot with India wasn’t a factor as he lost in 1945 and the new PM had advocated Indian independence for 20 years.
Yet what happened to the figurehead of the independence campaign Ghandi?
Murdered by his own people, the killers being heroes of the current ruling party which only last week was again raiding and shutting down newspapers they do not like.

Not keen on handing out cash to them, in fact that has sadly galvanized those who have succeeded in getting a government that has slashed foreign aid, from the UK being about the best for that as a portion of GDP, to one of the worst.
Tough to justify to a mainstream audience giving tax £ to a nation with nuclear weapons and a space program.
It’s far more complex than that I know and not even the best example, especially with the climate change issue, still its a message that resonates with people.

Err, he was educated in India. At Stephens in Delhi. He’s as Indian educated as western educated, but anyway, it isn’t about him. It’s about the argument he made, which resonated globally.

Also don’t know how Gandhi figures into this (political assassination are hardly a unique feature of former colonies), or why the political party in charge at any given time in a democracy should detract from a much longer standing issue. I trust this lot less than you, but that doesn’t absolve the UK of its past in India.

And nuclear programs and space programs? I get what you mean. But that’s an education issue. One feeds power into India - relatively clean power. Probably a good thing in this context. The other is a massive revenue generator - launching satellites from all over the world.

That this rankles the “people” or resonates with the
is irrelevant here. It’s deflection. Past action and responsibilities need to be acknowledged to get a resolution here.

As to India existing or not existing, that too is irrelevant here, since the wealth extraction (like salt laws) occurred regardless, and the consequences of losing wealth were passed on at the individual level, whether they called themselves Marathas or Mughals or Indians. That feeds into the situation we find ourselves in, with one part over the most polluting hump of development, and the other approaching it.

Either way, till the north owns up to some level of responsibility here, this is going to remain a vicious cycle. Personally think transfers of technology are the key, but we couldn’t even get that during a pandemic when people were dying.

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s like the 2016 Oxford Union Debate with Shashi Tharoor.

“Reparations” are rarely about an actual amount of money; they’re about acknowledging responsibility for actions in the past.

Comparing it to “begging” just highlights the scale of the disconnect here.

Him! Born in the UK, educated in the West, went to India at a young age, eventually got into into politics for Congress but started agreeing with the nuttier elements of the BJP including their claims to have invented everything including aircraft, he’s far too intelligent to believe that so presumably was trying to save his political skin, which eventually did not work.
As for his assertion that India, before the British arrived, was an economic superpower with 27% of global GDP, how then did a rag tag bunch of chancers called the East India Company take over such a behemoth?
They did it because ‘India’ as we understand what the subcontinent was called then, wasn’t a nation in that sense.
It was divide and rule, paying off local rulers, Imperial control via the British state came later.

Not defending any of it but they were certainly betrayed after WW1 after being promised Dominion status, yet in WW2 raised the largest volunteer army in history, with the implicit agreement, whether Churchill liked it or not, that independence would follow. His blind spot with India wasn’t a factor as he lost in 1945 and the new PM had advocated Indian independence for 20 years.
Yet what happened to the figurehead of the independence campaign Ghandi?
Murdered by his own people, the killers being heroes of the current ruling party which only last week was again raiding and shutting down newspapers they do not like.

Not keen on handing out cash to them, in fact that has sadly galvanized those who have succeeded in getting a government that has slashed foreign aid, from the UK being about the best for that as a portion of GDP, to one of the worst.
Tough to justify to a mainstream audience giving tax £ to a nation with nuclear weapons and a space program.
It’s far more complex than that I know and not even the best example, especially with the climate change issue, still its a message that resonates with people.

Err, he was educated in India. At Stephens in Delhi. He’s as Indian educated as western educated, but anyway, it isn’t about him. It’s about the argument he made, which resonated globally.

Also don’t know how Gandhi figures into this (political assassination are hardly a unique feature of former colonies), or why the political party in charge at any given time in a democracy should detract from a much longer standing issue. I trust this lot less than you, but that doesn’t absolve the UK of its past in India.

And nuclear programs and space programs? I get what you mean. But that’s an education issue. One feeds power into India - relatively clean power. Probably a good thing in this context. The other is a massive revenue generator - launching satellites from all over the world.

That this rankles the “people” or resonates with the
is irrelevant here. It’s deflection. Past action and responsibilities need to be acknowledged to get a resolution here.

As to India existing or not existing, that too is irrelevant here, since the wealth extraction (like salt laws) occurred regardless, and the consequences of losing wealth were passed on at the individual level, whether they called themselves Marathas or Mughals or Indians. That feeds into the situation we find ourselves in, with one part over the most polluting hump of development, and the other approaching it.

Either way, till the north owns up to some level of responsibility here, this is going to remain a vicious cycle. Personally think transfers of technology are the key, but we couldn’t even get that during a pandemic when people were dying.

He left for India aged two, was educated at a number of places worldwide including in the US.
He’s just not a good advocate for the reparations idea, India was not the ‘economic’ superpower he claims when that bunch from the East India Company arrived, which makes the rest of his assertions suspect.
Aside from the historically proven ones.
Could have been worse, other European colonial nations tended not to leave so voluntarily, Portugal were fighting colonial wars up until the mid 1970’s, until that most unlikely thing, a left wing military coup overthrew a dictator and put in a democracy.

(Which also made that scumbag Ian Smith and his UDI unsustainable as he was now surrounded on all sides by enemies and even South Africa were never that supportive.
Who oversaw the transition to democracy, the ‘evil’ British, who came next, Mugabe and we know how that turned out, yet he derived support even as he reduced the country to ruination, settled tribal scores and enough credulous idiots in the West went along with it for too long. Now Rhodesia is a symbol for some, racist American mass killer Dylan Roof wore a Rhodesian flag for example).

Then there is the other factor, India independent for 75 years now.
You are effectively asking people not born then to shell out for the not even the sins of their ancestors, as the villains of the piece were from a very narrow part of society and little or none of the extraction profits were seen by most in the UK at the time.
Most people in Britain at the time were treated little better than the colonized, no accident that as mass democracy spread in the UK via greater economic and then gender suffrage, the Empire began to decline, WW1 hastened it, WW2 finished it off.

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

Him! Born in the UK, educated in the West, went to India at a young age, eventually got into into politics for Congress but started agreeing with the nuttier elements of the BJP including their claims to have invented everything including aircraft, he’s far too intelligent to believe that so presumably was trying to save his political skin, which eventually did not work.
As for his assertion that India, before the British arrived, was an economic superpower with 27% of global GDP, how then did a rag tag bunch of chancers called the East India Company take over such a behemoth?
They did it because ‘India’ as we understand what the subcontinent was called then, wasn’t a nation in that sense.
It was divide and rule, paying off local rulers, Imperial control via the British state came later.

Not defending any of it but they were certainly betrayed after WW1 after being promised Dominion status, yet in WW2 raised the largest volunteer army in history, with the implicit agreement, whether Churchill liked it or not, that independence would follow. His blind spot with India wasn’t a factor as he lost in 1945 and the new PM had advocated Indian independence for 20 years.
Yet what happened to the figurehead of the independence campaign Ghandi?
Murdered by his own people, the killers being heroes of the current ruling party which only last week was again raiding and shutting down newspapers they do not like.

Not keen on handing out cash to them, in fact that has sadly galvanized those who have succeeded in getting a government that has slashed foreign aid, from the UK being about the best for that as a portion of GDP, to one of the worst.
Tough to justify to a mainstream audience giving tax £ to a nation with nuclear weapons and a space program.
It’s far more complex than that I know and not even the best example, especially with the climate change issue, still its a message that resonates with people.

Err, he was educated in India. At Stephens in Delhi. He’s as Indian educated as western educated, but anyway, it isn’t about him. It’s about the argument he made, which resonated globally.

Also don’t know how Gandhi figures into this (political assassination are hardly a unique feature of former colonies), or why the political party in charge at any given time in a democracy should detract from a much longer standing issue. I trust this lot less than you, but that doesn’t absolve the UK of its past in India.

And nuclear programs and space programs? I get what you mean. But that’s an education issue. One feeds power into India - relatively clean power. Probably a good thing in this context. The other is a massive revenue generator - launching satellites from all over the world.

That this rankles the “people” or resonates with the
is irrelevant here. It’s deflection. Past action and responsibilities need to be acknowledged to get a resolution here.

As to India existing or not existing, that too is irrelevant here, since the wealth extraction (like salt laws) occurred regardless, and the consequences of losing wealth were passed on at the individual level, whether they called themselves Marathas or Mughals or Indians. That feeds into the situation we find ourselves in, with one part over the most polluting hump of development, and the other approaching it.

Either way, till the north owns up to some level of responsibility here, this is going to remain a vicious cycle. Personally think transfers of technology are the key, but we couldn’t even get that during a pandemic when people were dying.

He left for India aged two, was educated at a number of places worldwide including in the US.
He’s just not a good advocate for the reparations idea, India was not the ‘economic’ superpower he claims when that bunch from the East India Company arrived, which makes the rest of his assertions suspect.
Aside from the historically proven ones.
Could have been worse, other European colonial nations tended not to leave so voluntarily, Portugal were fighting colonial wars up until the mid 1970’s, until that most unlikely thing, a left wing military coup overthrew a dictator and put in a democracy.

(Which also made that scumbag Ian Smith and his UDI unsustainable as he was now surrounded on all sides by enemies and even South Africa were never that supportive.
Who oversaw the transition to democracy, the ‘evil’ British, who came next, Mugabe and we know how that turned out, yet he derived support even as he reduced the country to ruination, settled tribal scores and enough credulous idiots in the West went along with it for too long. Now Rhodesia is a symbol for some, racist American mass killer Dylan Root wore a Rhodesian flag or example).

Then there is the other factor, India independent for 75 years now.
You are effectively asking people not born then to shell out for the not even the sins of their ancestors, as the villains of the piece were from a very narrow part of society and little or none of the extraction profits were seen by most in the UK at the time.

Unless I’m reading his bio incorrectly, he did high school in Kolkata and his undergrad in Delhi. Not sure that his fathers international transfers when he was two make him less “Indian” since that’s the implication here. Nor is he the spokesman for this- again, focus on his argument. Play the ball, not the man etc. Where he grew up is largely irrelevant here. As is he. His argument didn’t resonate simply because of who he was.

The rest is the standard argument for absolving oneself of responsibility - but it assumes that all responsibility must be held at the individual level. And dissolves when the individual goes. Even that doesn’t hold up as well as everyone thinks it does. For it to work - in this specific instance - you’d have to argue that wealth doesn’t transfer down generations. Except that it self-evidently does. A future generation can benefit materially from a previous generations ill-gotten wealth.

You could trot it out in the context of how much moral responsibility one bears for murders committed by one’s great grandfather, sure, but it would be a little absurd to say that money stolen by ones father and passed down belongs to oneself because it was stolen by a previous generation. My father couldn’t for example, steal your possessions and bequeath them to me on his death, with the expectation that you’d accept that its no longer yours because I didn’t commit the actual crime of stealing it from you.

That, I think, is the fundamental point that these reparation arguments hinge on. And negotiations tend to die on. I mean, sure, we can keep pretending that colonialism should have no bearing on north-south negotiations today, but that’ll just lead you to no agreement. At which point we’re just waiting to reach the point where climate change becomes sufficiently destabilizing for the north (mass migration, perhaps) to force a dialogue, which will likely go straight back to this discussion.

My honest opinion is that reparations are going to be a feature, rather than a bug.

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Err, he was educated in India. At Stephens in Delhi. He’s as Indian educated as western educated, but anyway, it isn’t about him. It’s about the argument he made, which resonated globally.

Also don’t know how Gandhi figures into this (political assassination are hardly a unique feature of former colonies), or why the political party in charge at any given time in a democracy should detract from a much longer standing issue. I trust this lot less than you, but that doesn’t absolve the UK of its past in India.

And nuclear programs and space programs? I get what you mean. But that’s an education issue. One feeds power into India - relatively clean power. Probably a good thing in this context. The other is a massive revenue generator - launching satellites from all over the world.

That this rankles the “people” or resonates with the
is irrelevant here. It’s deflection. Past action and responsibilities need to be acknowledged to get a resolution here.

As to India existing or not existing, that too is irrelevant here, since the wealth extraction (like salt laws) occurred regardless, and the consequences of losing wealth were passed on at the individual level, whether they called themselves Marathas or Mughals or Indians. That feeds into the situation we find ourselves in, with one part over the most polluting hump of development, and the other approaching it.

Either way, till the north owns up to some level of responsibility here, this is going to remain a vicious cycle. Personally think transfers of technology are the key, but we couldn’t even get that during a pandemic when people were dying.

He left for India aged two, was educated at a number of places worldwide including in the US.
He’s just not a good advocate for the reparations idea, India was not the ‘economic’ superpower he claims when that bunch from the East India Company arrived, which makes the rest of his assertions suspect.
Aside from the historically proven ones.
Could have been worse, other European colonial nations tended not to leave so voluntarily, Portugal were fighting colonial wars up until the mid 1970’s, until that most unlikely thing, a left wing military coup overthrew a dictator and put in a democracy.

(Which also made that scumbag Ian Smith and his UDI unsustainable as he was now surrounded on all sides by enemies and even South Africa were never that supportive.
Who oversaw the transition to democracy, the ‘evil’ British, who came next, Mugabe and we know how that turned out, yet he derived support even as he reduced the country to ruination, settled tribal scores and enough credulous idiots in the West went along with it for too long. Now Rhodesia is a symbol for some, racist American mass killer Dylan Root wore a Rhodesian flag or example).

Then there is the other factor, India independent for 75 years now.
You are effectively asking people not born then to shell out for the not even the sins of their ancestors, as the villains of the piece were from a very narrow part of society and little or none of the extraction profits were seen by most in the UK at the time.

Unless I’m reading his bio incorrectly, he did high school in Kolkata and his undergrad in Delhi. Not sure that his fathers international transfers when he was two make him less “Indian” since that’s the implication here. Nor is he the spokesman for this- again, focus on his argument. Play the ball, not the man etc. Where he grew up is largely irrelevant here. As is he. His argument didn’t resonate simply because of who he was.

The rest is the standard argument for absolving oneself of responsibility - but it assumes that all responsibility must be held at the individual level. And dissolves when the individual goes. Even that doesn’t hold up as well as everyone thinks it does. For it to work - in this specific instance - you’d have to argue that wealth doesn’t transfer down generations. Except that it self-evidently does. A future generation can benefit materially from a previous generations ill-gotten wealth.

You could trot it out in the context of how much moral responsibility one bears for murders committed by one’s great grandfather, sure, but it would be a little absurd to say that money stolen by ones father and passed down belongs to oneself because it was stolen by a previous generation. My father couldn’t for example, steal your possessions and bequeath them to me on his death, with the expectation that you’d accept that its no longer yours because I didn’t commit the actual crime of stealing it from you.

That, I think, is the fundamental point that these reparation arguments hinge on.

I just don’t have the simple view of it.
More concerned with practical solutions not settling old scores, the examples I gave show where that can lead.
As for him, he comes across as smug and being in politics there, after failing to become UN General Secretary, likely did very well out of it too, effectively doing his own taking from those with the least.

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

He left for India aged two, was educated at a number of places worldwide including in the US.
He’s just not a good advocate for the reparations idea, India was not the ‘economic’ superpower he claims when that bunch from the East India Company arrived, which makes the rest of his assertions suspect.
Aside from the historically proven ones.
Could have been worse, other European colonial nations tended not to leave so voluntarily, Portugal were fighting colonial wars up until the mid 1970’s, until that most unlikely thing, a left wing military coup overthrew a dictator and put in a democracy.

(Which also made that scumbag Ian Smith and his UDI unsustainable as he was now surrounded on all sides by enemies and even South Africa were never that supportive.
Who oversaw the transition to democracy, the ‘evil’ British, who came next, Mugabe and we know how that turned out, yet he derived support even as he reduced the country to ruination, settled tribal scores and enough credulous idiots in the West went along with it for too long. Now Rhodesia is a symbol for some, racist American mass killer Dylan Root wore a Rhodesian flag or example).

Then there is the other factor, India independent for 75 years now.
You are effectively asking people not born then to shell out for the not even the sins of their ancestors, as the villains of the piece were from a very narrow part of society and little or none of the extraction profits were seen by most in the UK at the time.

Unless I’m reading his bio incorrectly, he did high school in Kolkata and his undergrad in Delhi. Not sure that his fathers international transfers when he was two make him less “Indian” since that’s the implication here. Nor is he the spokesman for this- again, focus on his argument. Play the ball, not the man etc. Where he grew up is largely irrelevant here. As is he. His argument didn’t resonate simply because of who he was.

The rest is the standard argument for absolving oneself of responsibility - but it assumes that all responsibility must be held at the individual level. And dissolves when the individual goes. Even that doesn’t hold up as well as everyone thinks it does. For it to work - in this specific instance - you’d have to argue that wealth doesn’t transfer down generations. Except that it self-evidently does. A future generation can benefit materially from a previous generations ill-gotten wealth.

You could trot it out in the context of how much moral responsibility one bears for murders committed by one’s great grandfather, sure, but it would be a little absurd to say that money stolen by ones father and passed down belongs to oneself because it was stolen by a previous generation. My father couldn’t for example, steal your possessions and bequeath them to me on his death, with the expectation that you’d accept that its no longer yours because I didn’t commit the actual crime of stealing it from you.

That, I think, is the fundamental point that these reparation arguments hinge on.

I just don’t have the simple view of it.
More concerned with practical solutions not settling old scores, the examples I gave show where that can lead.
As for him, he comes across as smug and being in politics there, after failing to become UN General Secretary, likely did very well out of it too, effectively doing his own taking from those with the least.

Too “elite” for you? Haha.

I don’t care much for him, but I know the ripples his stance on that particular issue sent them rough India and much of the developing world. For all his faults, he nailed it on resonance and convincing folk (of the colonial variety anyway). The strong criticism he faced (and continues to face) just reinforces how effective he was in the first place. Incidentally, the 27% of global GDP wasn’t his invention - it was based on a peer reviewed paper by two American scholars (not of the visible minority kind either - Clingingsmith and Williamson, so we can avoid casting aspersions on that front too ) at Harvard.

It’s easy to argue in favor of settling old scores when it’s the other side that carries the practical burden. Telling the south to play nice, and do what they’re asked to do, while ignoring historical grievances, isn’t going to work. It hasn’t worked for the last 15 years. The ugly reality is that the south is willing to weather out climate change if they have to. If people get upset, they’ll leave. The spectre of mass migration is going to go up, not down. It’s the north that’s fragile now - to mass migration and domestic upheaval. The “who needs who more” argument leans less in the norths favour than it did even 10 years ago.

It’s a conversation that needs to be had, no matter how much anyone would like to pretend the past doesn’t matter because Gandhi was shot by a Hindu fanatic, something about Rhodesia and American racists, and so on.

A101 wrote:

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

Does anyone else get sick of this whataboutism nonsense? China has a population exponentially larger than Australia and their per capita emissions much lower. Additionally, countries like China's emissions are high because they make all the cr#p that places in the West buys; IE the Western World's per-capita emissions would be higher still if not for much of them being outsourced to China.

30 seconds of googling on CO2 emissions (tonnes) per capita:

Canada 18.58
Australia 17.10
United States 15.52
Germany 9.44
China 7.38

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... er-capita/

There is plenty to criticize about China and the new coal plants they keep opening etc, but such statements like what OP makes are clearly just an attempt at justifying not doing anything to mitigate climate change. .

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Unless I’m reading his bio incorrectly, he did high school in Kolkata and his undergrad in Delhi. Not sure that his fathers international transfers when he was two make him less “Indian” since that’s the implication here. Nor is he the spokesman for this- again, focus on his argument. Play the ball, not the man etc. Where he grew up is largely irrelevant here. As is he. His argument didn’t resonate simply because of who he was.

The rest is the standard argument for absolving oneself of responsibility - but it assumes that all responsibility must be held at the individual level. And dissolves when the individual goes. Even that doesn’t hold up as well as everyone thinks it does. For it to work - in this specific instance - you’d have to argue that wealth doesn’t transfer down generations. Except that it self-evidently does. A future generation can benefit materially from a previous generations ill-gotten wealth.

You could trot it out in the context of how much moral responsibility one bears for murders committed by one’s great grandfather, sure, but it would be a little absurd to say that money stolen by ones father and passed down belongs to oneself because it was stolen by a previous generation. My father couldn’t for example, steal your possessions and bequeath them to me on his death, with the expectation that you’d accept that its no longer yours because I didn’t commit the actual crime of stealing it from you.

That, I think, is the fundamental point that these reparation arguments hinge on.

I just don’t have the simple view of it.
More concerned with practical solutions not settling old scores, the examples I gave show where that can lead.
As for him, he comes across as smug and being in politics there, after failing to become UN General Secretary, likely did very well out of it too, effectively doing his own taking from those with the least.

Too “elite” for you? Haha.

I don’t care much for him, but I know the ripples his stance on that particular issue sent them rough India and much of the developing world. For all his faults, he nailed it on resonance and convincing folk (of the colonial variety anyway). The strong criticism he faced (and continues to face) just reinforces how effective he was in the first place. Incidentally, the 27% of global GDP wasn’t his invention - it was based on a peer reviewed paper by two American scholars (not of the visible minority kind either - Clingingsmith and Williamson, so we can avoid casting aspersions on that front too ) at Harvard.

It’s easy to argue in favor of settling old scores when it’s the other side that carries the practical burden. Telling the south to play nice, and do what they’re asked to do, while ignoring historical grievances, isn’t going to work. It hasn’t worked for the last 15 years. The ugly reality is that the south is willing to weather out climate change if they have to. If people get upset, they’ll leave. The spectre of mass migration is going to go up, not down. It’s the north that’s fragile now - to mass migration and domestic upheaval. The “who needs who more” argument leans less in the norths favour than it did even 10 years ago.

It’s a conversation that needs to be had, no matter how much anyone would like to pretend the past doesn’t matter because Gandhi was shot by a Hindu fanatic, something about Rhodesia and American racists, and so on.

This is all about let's face it, bringing up the past, two can play that game which you seem to have no answer to.
Like I said, it's solutions that count, for all our sakes.

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Exactly, you can't expect those underdeveloped, corrupt communists to use the money sensibly. It might even end up at companies that aren't based in first-world countries.
Maybe one could send a counselor or proconsul to help other governments spend their money the right way?

GDB wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

GDB wrote:

I just don’t have the simple view of it.
More concerned with practical solutions not settling old scores, the examples I gave show where that can lead.
As for him, he comes across as smug and being in politics there, after failing to become UN General Secretary, likely did very well out of it too, effectively doing his own taking from those with the least.

Too “elite” for you? Haha.

I don’t care much for him, but I know the ripples his stance on that particular issue sent them rough India and much of the developing world. For all his faults, he nailed it on resonance and convincing folk (of the colonial variety anyway). The strong criticism he faced (and continues to face) just reinforces how effective he was in the first place. Incidentally, the 27% of global GDP wasn’t his invention - it was based on a peer reviewed paper by two American scholars (not of the visible minority kind either - Clingingsmith and Williamson, so we can avoid casting aspersions on that front too ) at Harvard.

It’s easy to argue in favor of settling old scores when it’s the other side that carries the practical burden. Telling the south to play nice, and do what they’re asked to do, while ignoring historical grievances, isn’t going to work. It hasn’t worked for the last 15 years. The ugly reality is that the south is willing to weather out climate change if they have to. If people get upset, they’ll leave. The spectre of mass migration is going to go up, not down. It’s the north that’s fragile now - to mass migration and domestic upheaval. The “who needs who more” argument leans less in the norths favour than it did even 10 years ago.

It’s a conversation that needs to be had, no matter how much anyone would like to pretend the past doesn’t matter because Gandhi was shot by a Hindu fanatic, something about Rhodesia and American racists, and so on.

This is all about let's face it, bringing up the past, two can play that game which you seem to have no answer to.
Like I said, it's solutions that count, for all our sakes.

The past is only brought up when the present costs imposed on the developing world are disproportionately high.

After all, this issue hinges on the developing world being told that they mustn’t go through the same high pollution phases of development that others went through because it’s too damaging, but just opt for more expensive solutions which they can’t necessarily afford. That those damaging phases happened in the “past” for some doesn’t change anything. Trying to dismiss it as such amounts to “do as I say, not as I did”. Simply doesn’t work. The “past” has dictated this “present”.

That it doesn’t suit some because it hurts their national pride and forces less than comfortable conversations about the past is irrelevant here. I forget the name of the LSE academic who referred to this mindset as postcolonial melancholy, but there’s more than an element of it in some of these “two can play that game” argument.

As to solutions, going to say transfer of technology for the third or fourth time. Reality is, we couldn’t even make that happen during the urgent crisis that was the pandemic.

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Then buy proprietary IP rights from green tech companies and hand that over. Costly tech in lieu of aid. Fund green energy and so on.

Don’t have to cut a blank check here.

mxaxai wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Exactly, you can't expect those underdeveloped, corrupt communists to use the money sensibly. It might even end up at companies that aren't based in first-world countries.
Maybe one could send a counselor or proconsul to help other governments spend their money the right way?

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Then buy proprietary IP rights from green tech companies and hand that over. Costly tech in lieu of aid. Fund green energy and so on.

Don’t have to cut a blank check here.

This is already done through initatives like world bank and asia development bank.
Yet people still complain about those existing projects, claiming they have too much strings attached, and praise initatives by rival power that give money to ruling class of various countries directly instead.

c933103 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Exactly, you can't expect those underdeveloped, corrupt communists to use the money sensibly. It might even end up at companies that aren't based in first-world countries.
Maybe one could send a counselor or proconsul to help other governments spend their money the right way?

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Main problem is if developed countries send money to developing countries how will they be used? Are you going to tell me you believe sending money to China won't result in those money being used to either develop the PLA military or to line the pocket of those autocrats ruling the country now? Only a handful of developing countries have a sufficiently clean system that one can believe things like these won't happen.

Then buy proprietary IP rights from green tech companies and hand that over. Costly tech in lieu of aid. Fund green energy and so on.

Don’t have to cut a blank check here.

This is already done through initatives like world bank and asia development bank.
Yet people still complain about those existing projects, claiming they have too much strings attached, and praise initatives by rival power that give money to ruling class of various countries directly instead.

Then do more of it. Sure some might complain, but once the cold, hard infrastructure lands on the ground, they won’t have room to. That rival power has built a lot of infrastructure alongside handing out money. While others previously spent decades bemoaning the lack of infrastructure and its importance… without doing much to help because it was more expensive than building a school here or there.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Exactly, you can't expect those underdeveloped, corrupt communists to use the money sensibly. It might even end up at companies that aren't based in first-world countries.
Maybe one could send a counselor or proconsul to help other governments spend their money the right way?

ElPistolero wrote:

Then buy proprietary IP rights from green tech companies and hand that over. Costly tech in lieu of aid. Fund green energy and so on.

Don’t have to cut a blank check here.

This is already done through initatives like world bank and asia development bank.
Yet people still complain about those existing projects, claiming they have too much strings attached, and praise initatives by rival power that give money to ruling class of various countries directly instead.

Then do more of it. Sure some might complain, but once the cold, hard infrastructure lands on the ground, they won’t have room to. That rival power has built a lot of infrastructure alongside handing out money. While others previously spent decades bemoaning the lack of infrastructure and its importance… without doing much to help because it was more expensive than building a school here or there.

They still will. Tons of infrastructure in China are developed with funding from Asia Development Bank and see what's the feedback? These institutions do not have their own propaganda department.

zkojq wrote:

A101 wrote:

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

Does anyone else get sick of this whataboutism nonsense? China has a population exponentially larger than Australia and their per capita emissions much lower. Additionally, countries like China's emissions are high because they make all the cr#p that places in the West buys; IE the Western World's per-capita emissions would be higher still if not for much of them being outsourced to China.

30 seconds of googling on CO2 emissions (tonnes) per capita:

Canada 18.58
Australia 17.10
United States 15.52
Germany 9.44
China 7.38

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... er-capita/

There is plenty to criticize about China and the new coal plants they keep opening etc, but such statements like what OP makes are clearly just an attempt at justifying not doing anything to mitigate climate change. .

Per Capita is a flawed matrix to use as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere dose not count individuals it only measures gross

If Australia reduced its emissions to zero what would the impact be zero impact what would the impact of China does in the short term nothing and most likely in the long term nothing

Here's the funny part. You will see the SAME rich people getting RICHER from "climate reparations" as got rich by emitting CO2.

Mark my words on that! The SAME people are involved. Today almost no finance people are involved in the oil business. "Climate" is the hot career field where you can make money in New York, DC and I presume, London.

A101 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

A101 wrote:

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

Does anyone else get sick of this whataboutism nonsense? China has a population exponentially larger than Australia and their per capita emissions much lower. Additionally, countries like China's emissions are high because they make all the cr#p that places in the West buys; IE the Western World's per-capita emissions would be higher still if not for much of them being outsourced to China.

30 seconds of googling on CO2 emissions (tonnes) per capita:

Canada 18.58
Australia 17.10
United States 15.52
Germany 9.44
China 7.38

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... er-capita/

There is plenty to criticize about China and the new coal plants they keep opening etc, but such statements like what OP makes are clearly just an attempt at justifying not doing anything to mitigate climate change. .

Per Capita is a flawed matrix to use as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere dose not count individuals it only measures gross

If Australia reduced its emissions to zero what would the impact be zero impact what would the impact of China does in the short term nothing and most likely in the long term nothing

It’s the only equitable way of distributing responsibility.

While it’s true that the aggregate amount is the actual problem, the only fair way to address that is by bringing per capita even - not necessarily by increasing per capita emissions in Asia, but decreasing it elsewhere. Levelling down, rather than levelling up.

That would require a lot more sacrifices at the individual level in Australia than in China. Till they change their own behaviour, they don’t really have a leg to stand on when demanding behavioural changes from others.

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

Australia on the other hand has reduced its carbon emissions at the expense of its own economy. Australia could have the cheapest power for domestic consumption but choose not too

So why would the ordinary Australian change when it is shown that it would have no impact whatsoever

Repatriations is another flawed argument as well.

The industrial revolution was not just confined to 1st world nations. Third world nations also benifited from technology advancements. Agrarian nations irrespective of the technology used also contributed to its share of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere by deforestation or burning those same forest or exporting those forest.

If not for the crawl walk run technology wise no one would be doing anything anyway. It’s due to SME that advancements are being made to reduce its carbon foot print irrespective if its capitalism communism or socialism governments 1st 2nd or 3rd world everyone has benifited from the industrial revolution

It’s just another money grabbing exercise just like carbon tax and so fourth

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

Australia on the other hand has reduced its carbon emissions at the expense of its own economy. Australia could have the cheapest power for domestic consumption but choose not too

So why would the ordinary Australian change when it is shown that it would have no impact whatsoever

Either climate change is a problem, or it’s not.

The Chinese certainly aren’t going to change their behaviour if the Australians don’t. Why should they? Just because there’s more of them?

Want to address the problem? Going to have to come up with a better strategy than “do as I say, not as I do”.

In any event, if we’re working on the assumption that countries are just going to do what they do anyway, what’s the point of this thread? Chide developing countries for “cash grabs” because they’re asking for reparations? Errr… okay.

But then at least be honest about it then and note that these “cash grabs” are significantly less morally dodgy than the cash grabs of colonization (salt laws!), that funded the Industrial Revolution and gave it captive clients - who were required by pain of death to fund factories in foreign lands.

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing because I’ve long concluded that on climate change in particular, the north-south divide cannot be bridged. It’s the inevitable consequence of one side enriching itself at the expense of the other, now demanding that the other change its ways for everyone’s sake, while refusing to acknowledge its own questionable deeds.

It’s never worked in the past. It won’t work now. We might as well scrap these conferences for good.

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s the only equitable way of distributing responsibility.

If there is population control, maybe. Which is the case with China, but it's still the most populous country.

I think some of the Chinese emissions should be counted towards us, though, since they're making our stuff.

ElPistolero wrote:

Either climate change is a problem, or it’s not.

That’s the point of contention, I don’t think it’s as big as a problem as it’s portrayed to be

ElPistolero wrote:

The Chinese certainly aren’t going to change their behaviour if the Australians don’t. Why should they? Just because there’s more of them?

Well that’s the problem isn’t it. Australia like so many other countries have reduced its global emissions to the detriment of its economy

ElPistolero wrote:

Want to address the problem? Going to have to come up with a better strategy than “do as I say, not as I do”.

Once again they are not sitting on their hands. But the Chinese are also saying you can do what you want but we are still doing it to enhance our own economic benefits

ElPistolero wrote:

In any event, if we’re working on the assumption that countries are just going to do what they do anyway, what’s the point of this thread? Chide developing countries for “cash grabs” because they’re asking for reparations? Errr… okay.

It’s not chiding the point is to get the information out there that is what’s happening at these climate junkets

ElPistolero wrote:

But then at least be honest about it then and note that these “cash grabs” are significantly less morally dodgy than the cash grabs of colonization (salt laws!), that funded the Industrial Revolution and gave it captive clients - who were required by pain of death to fund factories in foreign lands.

Well let’s be honest about this someone has been exploited since the days of Adam and Eve. Just like now nations are doing things in there own interests it’s just that society has become a lot more morally sensitive to events

ElPistolero wrote:

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing because I’ve long concluded that on climate change in particular, the north-south divide cannot be bridged. It’s the inevitable consequence of one side enriching itself at the expense of the other, now demanding that the other change its ways for everyone’s sake, while refusing to acknowledge its own questionable deeds.

Only people doing the demanding are the likes of Greta & Co

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s never worked in the past. It won’t work now. We might as well scrap these conferences for good.

I second that.....anyone else want to pass the motion?

ElPistolero wrote:

Either climate change is a problem, or it’s not.

The Chinese certainly aren’t going to change their behaviour if the Australians don’t. Why should they? Just because there’s more of them?

Want to address the problem? Going to have to come up with a better strategy than “do as I say, not as I do”.

In any event, if we’re working on the assumption that countries are just going to do what they do anyway, what’s the point of this thread? Chide developing countries for “cash grabs” because they’re asking for reparations? Errr… okay.

But then at least be honest about it then and note that these “cash grabs” are significantly less morally dodgy than the cash grabs of colonization (salt laws!), that funded the Industrial Revolution and gave it captive clients - who were required by pain of death to fund factories in foreign lands.

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing because I’ve long concluded that on climate change in particular, the north-south divide cannot be bridged. It’s the inevitable consequence of one side enriching itself at the expense of the other, now demanding that the other change its ways for everyone’s sake, while refusing to acknowledge its own questionable deeds.

It’s never worked in the past. It won’t work now. We might as well scrap these conferences for good.

Lol what? Is that Anarchy-primitivism ideology?

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Either climate change is a problem, or it’s not.

The Chinese certainly aren’t going to change their behaviour if the Australians don’t. Why should they? Just because there’s more of them?

Want to address the problem? Going to have to come up with a better strategy than “do as I say, not as I do”.

In any event, if we’re working on the assumption that countries are just going to do what they do anyway, what’s the point of this thread? Chide developing countries for “cash grabs” because they’re asking for reparations? Errr… okay.

But then at least be honest about it then and note that these “cash grabs” are significantly less morally dodgy than the cash grabs of colonization (salt laws!), that funded the Industrial Revolution and gave it captive clients - who were required by pain of death to fund factories in foreign lands.

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing because I’ve long concluded that on climate change in particular, the north-south divide cannot be bridged. It’s the inevitable consequence of one side enriching itself at the expense of the other, now demanding that the other change its ways for everyone’s sake, while refusing to acknowledge its own questionable deeds.

It’s never worked in the past. It won’t work now. We might as well scrap these conferences for good.

Lol what? Is that Anarchy-primitivism ideology?

Haven’t a clue. Don’t keep up with academic fads. Is it?

A101 wrote:

That’s the point of contention, I don’t think it’s as big as a problem as it’s portrayed to be

Then why did you start a thread that literally titled “Climate change is serious…”?

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

That’s the point of contention, I don’t think it’s as big as a problem as it’s portrayed to be

Then why did you start a thread that literally titled “Climate change is serious…”?

That was what one of the links headlines were at the time

Just a copy and paste headline

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... ust-money/

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Either climate change is a problem, or it’s not.

The Chinese certainly aren’t going to change their behaviour if the Australians don’t. Why should they? Just because there’s more of them?

Want to address the problem? Going to have to come up with a better strategy than “do as I say, not as I do”.

In any event, if we’re working on the assumption that countries are just going to do what they do anyway, what’s the point of this thread? Chide developing countries for “cash grabs” because they’re asking for reparations? Errr… okay.

But then at least be honest about it then and note that these “cash grabs” are significantly less morally dodgy than the cash grabs of colonization (salt laws!), that funded the Industrial Revolution and gave it captive clients - who were required by pain of death to fund factories in foreign lands.

I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole thing because I’ve long concluded that on climate change in particular, the north-south divide cannot be bridged. It’s the inevitable consequence of one side enriching itself at the expense of the other, now demanding that the other change its ways for everyone’s sake, while refusing to acknowledge its own questionable deeds.

It’s never worked in the past. It won’t work now. We might as well scrap these conferences for good.

Lol what? Is that Anarchy-primitivism ideology?

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.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Lol what? Is that Anarchy-primitivism ideology?

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.

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.

Countries aren't interested in deploying green technologies will still remain uninterested even if funds are given to them.
Not to mention the fund being proposed here are for "reparation" instead of developing and deploying green technologies.

I said the divide is hardly unbridgeable, but that require correct decisions to be made by relevant national governments. As I have mentioned, politicians and even general public in many developing countries still reject steps needed to bring a country's economy to developed status, and thus the divide against those countries will remain the same no decades and yers down the world even if it's not hard to change. And as this is a mentality factor, no amount of foreign financial aid is going to change that.

Specifically on the proposal of funding the countries to industralize in more clinate friendly way, the first requirement needed to achieve this is for this countries to have an atmosphere suitable for industrialization. Lacking openness and transparency and an anticipatible investment environment, the result is even if you funded the construction of all infrastructures and factories, companies still wouldn't make use of them to produce products and benefit the local economy in any lasting ways.

Indeed there are people who would argue "Do as I say not as I do" yet that's nothing more than excuse as the most hardline condition being given to developing countries was to match targets of developed countries, they will simply use other excuses instead if this one no longer fit, hence they aren't following what developed countries "do" even when they did do so. Countries like China even still produce and emit CFCs that have long been banned internationally.

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

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.

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.....

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.

A101 wrote:

That’s the point of contention, I don’t think it’s as big as a problem as it’s portrayed to be

Surprised Pikachu face!

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.

A101 wrote:

That’s the point of contention, I don’t think it’s as big as a problem as it’s portrayed to be

Surprised Pikachu face!

I think emission of countries like China are actually over estimated since they produce so much things with end consuner outside the country, a more fair way to judge carbon footprint of each countries is probably tracking the carbon footprint of each end products and add them onto the location where end consumer locate.