A101 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Haha, now we’ve gone to “let’s do nothing because all governments are too incompetent to learn from their mistakes”.

Except, presumably, those run by Koreans and Taiwanese. No other government has gotten anything right or learned from their mistakes.

Might as well just pack it, declare that Korea and Taiwan should be made global overlords, and if people suffer from climate-related events, they deserve it because of their national incompetence.

Might want to figure out what you’re arguing for.

It seems like you are twisting the argument into strawman that you want to argue against instead of what the argument against your idea actually was. I explicitly said no matter which type of governments.

They do that a lot on this site

Speaking of which:

“ PM Modi took a swipe at developed nations that have been trying to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions, when these nations have themselves been the biggest emitters of carbon and have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, long before emerging economies could see proper growth.

"The colonial mindset hasn't gone. We are seeing from developed nations that the path that made them developed is being closed for developing nations... If we talk about absolute cumulative (carbon) emissions, rich nations have emitted 15 times more from 1850 till now," PM Modi said. "The per capita emission is also 11 times more in the US and the EU."

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi ... 6202/amp/1

I can confirm that I’m neither the President of Sri Lanka nor the Prime Minister of India.

Going to take a lot of twisting to disconnect colonialism and climate, old chap. Even I can’t pull that off .

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

It seems like you are twisting the argument into strawman that you want to argue against instead of what the argument against your idea actually was. I explicitly said no matter which type of governments.

They do that a lot on this site

Speaking of which:

“ PM Modi took a swipe at developed nations that have been trying to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions, when these nations have themselves been the biggest emitters of carbon and have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, long before emerging economies could see proper growth.

"The colonial mindset hasn't gone. We are seeing from developed nations that the path that made them developed is being closed for developing nations... If we talk about absolute cumulative (carbon) emissions, rich nations have emitted 15 times more from 1850 till now," PM Modi said. "The per capita emission is also 11 times more in the US and the EU."

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi ... 6202/amp/1

I can confirm that I’m neither the President of Sri Lanka nor the Prime Minister of India.

Going to take a lot of twisting to disconnect colonialism and climate, old chap. Even I can’t pull that off .

They can try all they want because they just want the coin more than anything else, but all just bull and a lot of hot air

Considering how India has bee around a lot longer then England are we supposed to apologise because they didn’t advance at the same rate as other?

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

They do that a lot on this site

Speaking of which:

“ PM Modi took a swipe at developed nations that have been trying to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions, when these nations have themselves been the biggest emitters of carbon and have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, long before emerging economies could see proper growth.

"The colonial mindset hasn't gone. We are seeing from developed nations that the path that made them developed is being closed for developing nations... If we talk about absolute cumulative (carbon) emissions, rich nations have emitted 15 times more from 1850 till now," PM Modi said. "The per capita emission is also 11 times more in the US and the EU."

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi ... 6202/amp/1

I can confirm that I’m neither the President of Sri Lanka nor the Prime Minister of India.

Going to take a lot of twisting to disconnect colonialism and climate, old chap. Even I can’t pull that off .

They can try all they want because they just want the coin more than anything else, but all just bull and a lot of hot air

Considering how India has bee around a lot longer then England are we supposed to apologise because they didn’t advance at the same rate as other?

Oh, I don’t know about all that. I’m pretty sure the human species had a single start point, but I suppose this race-based stuff that defines apologists for colonialism, like Pearson, ascribes different start dates to different races.

Personally think that’s besides the point. Just thought I’d point out the developing countries are doing exactly what you insisted they weren’t doing - linking climate change and colonialism. A friendly reminder, if you will, that quoting Pearson on, well, anything, is a fools errand.

Ah colonialism - the elephant in the room that just won’t go away. COP28 will probably feature more of the same.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Speaking of which:

“ PM Modi took a swipe at developed nations that have been trying to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions, when these nations have themselves been the biggest emitters of carbon and have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, long before emerging economies could see proper growth.

"The colonial mindset hasn't gone. We are seeing from developed nations that the path that made them developed is being closed for developing nations... If we talk about absolute cumulative (carbon) emissions, rich nations have emitted 15 times more from 1850 till now," PM Modi said. "The per capita emission is also 11 times more in the US and the EU."

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi ... 6202/amp/1

I can confirm that I’m neither the President of Sri Lanka nor the Prime Minister of India.

Going to take a lot of twisting to disconnect colonialism and climate, old chap. Even I can’t pull that off .

They can try all they want because they just want the coin more than anything else, but all just bull and a lot of hot air

Considering how India has bee around a lot longer then England are we supposed to apologise because they didn’t advance at the same rate as other?

Oh, I don’t know about all that. I’m pretty sure the human species had a single start point, but I suppose this race-based stuff that defines apologists for colonialism, like Pearson, ascribes different start dates to different races.

Personally think that’s besides the point. Just thought I’d point out the developing countries are doing exactly what you insisted they weren’t doing - linking climate change and colonialism. A friendly reminder, if you will, that quoting Pearson on, well, anything, is a fools errand.

Ah colonialism - the elephant in the room that just won’t go away.

Just as much hot air in that post as at the climate meetings

But keep bang that drum

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

They can try all they want because they just want the coin more than anything else, but all just bull and a lot of hot air

Considering how India has bee around a lot longer then England are we supposed to apologise because they didn’t advance at the same rate as other?

Oh, I don’t know about all that. I’m pretty sure the human species had a single start point, but I suppose this race-based stuff that defines apologists for colonialism, like Pearson, ascribes different start dates to different races.

Personally think that’s besides the point. Just thought I’d point out the developing countries are doing exactly what you insisted they weren’t doing - linking climate change and colonialism. A friendly reminder, if you will, that quoting Pearson on, well, anything, is a fools errand.

Ah colonialism - the elephant in the room that just won’t go away.

Just as much hot air in that post as at the climate meetings

But keep bang that drum

Oh my bad - there must be an impostor on the loose.

A101 wrote:

Did the global south walk into the room at COP 27 and say we want climate reparations because of the past colonial history....

I should’ve known better. No one here would lie about posting factually incorrect claims. It’s a pity your account got hacked.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Oh, I don’t know about all that. I’m pretty sure the human species had a single start point, but I suppose this race-based stuff that defines apologists for colonialism, like Pearson, ascribes different start dates to different races.

Personally think that’s besides the point. Just thought I’d point out the developing countries are doing exactly what you insisted they weren’t doing - linking climate change and colonialism. A friendly reminder, if you will, that quoting Pearson on, well, anything, is a fools errand.

Ah colonialism - the elephant in the room that just won’t go away.

Just as much hot air in that post as at the climate meetings

But keep bang that drum

Oh my bad - there must be an impostor on the loose.

A101 wrote:

Did the global south walk into the room at COP 27 and say we want climate reparations because of the past colonial history....

I should’ve known better. No one here would lie about posting factually incorrect claims. It’s a pity your account got hacked.

I’ll give that it was mentioned, and missed that speech

But that does mean that they are correct just greedy

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just as much hot air in that post as at the climate meetings

But keep bang that drum

Oh my bad - there must be an impostor on the loose.

A101 wrote:

Did the global south walk into the room at COP 27 and say we want climate reparations because of the past colonial history....

I should’ve known better. No one here would lie about posting factually incorrect claims. It’s a pity your account got hacked.

I’ll give that it was mentioned, and missed that speech

But that does mean that they are correct just greedy

It’s hard to miss what one never bothered looking for. But hey, look at the bright side, at least we’re beginning to recognize colonialism for what it is - the elephant in the room anytime the north wants concessions from the south.

Too bad Pearson hasn’t figured it out yet.

Oh boy, a lot to cover here.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

man, still on the per-country apreach I see, and not per capita. Why, may I ask, you have been explained a number of times that is very convenient for citizens of smaller countries like Australia or the UK, or the Netherlands for that matter but is hardly a defendable position if you do not acknowledge the huge difference in the number of people and that China still is a manufactory country, so many of its pollutions is on behave of citizens of western countries like Austalia. If one does not take that into account, it is just a distortion of reality to fit one's believes.

Why because its not an accurate way to present it. Of Course China
Per-capita result is lower as the number of people divided by is large. The supposed climate greenhouse gases don’t care how many people are in each country it only cares about total amount emitted

And nature doesn't care about borders either, since they are very much artificial anyway. But let's strongly disagree that population size does matter in this debate, because comparing Vatican City with China absolutely makes no sense at all. But if you want to be part of a minuscule group of people on earth that says that they need to go by only per country, well please do so, if that is the only parameter that actually fits your narrative of not wanting to do something.

A101 wrote:

As China being the worlds cheap as chips manufacturers that’s policy position by the CCP and business position by private enterprise.

Are you also suggesting that international trade be suspended because of the climate emissions consumption

That is just a complete bull, nobody is suggesting that. But it would only be fair to count some of those emissions towards the products produced and where it is consumed, don't you think it is fair? Or do you want to have the emissions be counted with China and the benefit of the consumption with an Australian? Clear sign of the way you are thinking that consumption and the burden of that consumption is not connected in your train of thought, but in real life is.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The question is, can countries really afford it, and can societies really afford it? I would argue that they can't. People living in suburbs like the ones in Canada and the US, aren't paying the full weight of their decision to live out there. Given that everything is much more expensive to maintain a decent level of service and maintenance.

Of course it can the building and placement policy of said infrastructure is a nation building exercise that enhance the overall quality of life for its inhabitants

Actually, the way suburbs are put up, isn't enhancing the overall quality of life. That is the main point there. Sitting in a car to go anywhere does not contribute to the quality of life.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ambulance coverage has to be there, for instance, with low-density housing a lot more ambulances are needed to maintain the 15-minute arrival time

That has no impact if it hi or low density housing. The amount of service are predicated on the population levels of a given area all that means the ambulance ratio to population in the high density has to increase to meet the same matrix of your 15 min arrival time

Really? Arrival time has two components: speed and distance. With low-density housing distance does increase. So the logical conclusion is it does matter, matters a lot even.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And that is not priced into the prices of the houses. And not going into all the social cost for all the cars needed, and not just the money, but also the quality of life.

Why would they need to do that for ambulance coverage, not everyone owns there own home so if they only place ambulance coverage on new homes it would not produce the required income stream to the government to provide the service here in Australia new development pay towards the cost of putting the infrastructure in place such as road sewage service power and so court

Each nation has a different formula that place the tax burden for service on the population

You brought up America, there is actually a model of earnings and cost for the city: high-density low cost (or actually a plus), low-density high cost (and a minus). Putting up for the cost of putting the infrastructure the is one thing, but actually maintaining it year on year is quite another.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I can recommend the "not just bikes" channel on youtube, if you are truly interested in learning about this and why your position is just wrong.

No thanks not interested

Why would one like to educate oneself, indeed? Better to stay within one's own fixed train of thought.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I bet your carbon footprint is tenfold than that mine. You are not self-sufficient,

Dunno you personal circumstances and don’t want to know. It’s not a competition on how one can live the least quality of life

And that is a false statement about linking carbon footprint to quality of life. Guess it is better for one to think about the other with all the possibilities than actually know. Anyway, the carbon footprint of most western nations has gone down and the quality of life has gone up.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Although, I cannot imagine that you truly mean this. I mean 4 houses and 6 cars a boat and a caravan

The houses are part of my investment strategy, not unheard of you know.

1 did say two cars in restoration, so now it’s not green to recycle LOL

Caravan on order haven’t got it yet. The boat is no super luxury yacht just big enough to get out to do some deep sea fishing comfortably. If you are fortunate enough that’s the lifestyle done here in Oz

Might be one of the reasons the Ozzies have a large footprint, don't you think? Their way of life.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Maintenance on those cars (and buying some new now and again), patrol for all those vehicles, maintenance on those houses, buying stuff to put into those houses etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Your living habits cost the planet a lot.

Everything requires maintenance mate.even the bloke who rides his pushy to work needs tyres and brakes

Yes, so? You said self-sufficient, not me. Just giving examples of ways you are absolutely not.

A101 wrote:

My livening habits no I doubt it very much but it does help keep people employed.

So, is that a reason to pollute?

A101 wrote:

Everything I do makes money or reduce my cost.

Sorry mate, that does not sound very high quality of life to me.

A101 wrote:

My overseas travel is by only necessary which also held contribute to people’s employment in each place I go so one could call it a necessary evil if one wanted too

To put it in your own words: The supposed climate greenhouse gases don’t care why greenhouse gases are emitted it only cares about total amount emitted. And really, "supposed" com'on, still in denial.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the genuine question is, do you actually believe that you are almost self-sufficient or do you accept that your living habits cause a much larger footprint than even an average Australian of Brit?

Yep to our current society standards my reliance on the government is very small to get services which a modern society every one is entitled too just that I’m not a burden on the UK or AU government

If a zombie attack happen or if nuclear war happened my lifestyle would certainly be changed if that what you mean

Reliance on the government is something totally different than what we are talking about. And with pollution, pollution is free for the polluter, society fits that bill. In that way, you definitely are a burden on the Australian or UK government. Not nice to realize, perhaps, but it is something we have to accept, even I, with my low carbon footprint but still "doing alrght" income.

A101 wrote:

I don’t have a electricity bill as I’m not on the grid, not by choice but where I built the house it was cheaper to go solar and wind turbine than pay for the power to be connected and laid.

And where were your solar panels built? Probably in China. Does your house have batteries to keep you powered at night, in case there is no wind? Again, those are most likely produced in China (or South Korea). Where does the fuel for your cars, boats and planes come from? Probably extracted somewhere in South-East Asia and refined in Singapore. Your clothes and other electrical appliances? Not from Australia or the UK either.

Any environmental damage incurred while making or transporting things is counted towards the producing country's balance, even if it should be part of your personal footprint.

Who pays for the infrastructure to ship all that stuff to your (fairly remote) home? The Australian government, with taxes collected from the entire population. Who protects your precious property from undesirables and allows you to sue anyone who might break a contract? Oh, right, the government. Who guarantees open shipping lanes, provides access to foreign resources and negotiates advantageous (for you) trade agreements? Again, the government.

Don't pretend to be self-sufficient on your little isolated island of happiness when you're a member of society like everybody else. The higher your income or wealth, the more you profit from government-provided services and infrastructure.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Oh my bad - there must be an impostor on the loose.



I should’ve known better. No one here would lie about posting factually incorrect claims. It’s a pity your account got hacked.

I’ll give that it was mentioned, and missed that speech

But that does mean that they are correct just greedy

It’s hard to miss what one never bothered looking for. But hey, look at the bright side, at least we’re beginning to recognize colonialism for what it is - the elephant in the room anytime the north wants concessions from the south.

Too bad Pearson hasn’t figured it out yet.

If you insist it's about colonialism then should countries never being colonized before, like Ethiopia or Liberia, not be given any money under such climate reparation?

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Haha, now we’ve gone to “let’s do nothing because all governments are too incompetent to learn from their mistakes”.

Except, presumably, those run by Koreans and Taiwanese. No other government has gotten anything right or learned from their mistakes.

Might as well just pack it, declare that Korea and Taiwan should be made global overlords, and if people suffer from climate-related events, they deserve it because of their national incompetence.

Might want to figure out what you’re arguing for.

It seems like you are twisting the argument into strawman that you want to argue against instead of what the argument against your idea actually was. I explicitly said no matter which type of governments.

Ok. Enlighten us. What are you arguing exactly?

The most obvious conclusion from the phenomenon "There are more than enough fund but not enough governance to effectively spend them to help the people" is to develop a governance system that can effectively control and spend the funding.

The same apply to US, Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and everywhere.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

I’ll give that it was mentioned, and missed that speech

But that does mean that they are correct just greedy

It’s hard to miss what one never bothered looking for. But hey, look at the bright side, at least we’re beginning to recognize colonialism for what it is - the elephant in the room anytime the north wants concessions from the south.

Too bad Pearson hasn’t figured it out yet.

If you insist it's about colonialism then should countries never being colonized before, like Ethiopia or Liberia, not be given any money under such climate reparation?

There is, I think, a self-evident difference between saying that all decisions should be made on former colonial status, and that colonialism and its effects should be factored into how funds should be collected.

It’s less a question of it being all “about colonialism”, and more about recognizing that colonialism has contributed negatively to some of the imbalances we’re seeing.

c933103 wrote:

[
The most obvious conclusion from the phenomenon "There are more than enough fund but not enough governance to effectively spend them to help the people" is to develop a governance system that can effectively control and spend the funding.

The same apply to US, Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and everywhere.

Well, yes, there are more than enough funds around (rich countries are, indeed, very rich). And yes, it is necessary to have good governance in place (unless, of course, one believes that good governance can’t exist because humans never learn from their mistakes).

But it’s also about figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount of money. And that goes back to how rich countries became rich in the first place. Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage…leads to inevitable disagreements.

I don’t think I need to rephrase what the Indian and Sri Lankan leaders said. They’re there for all to see.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why because its not an accurate way to present it. Of Course China
Per-capita result is lower as the number of people divided by is large. The supposed climate greenhouse gases don’t care how many people are in each country it only cares about total amount emitted

And nature doesn't care about borders either, since they are very much artificial anyway.

Of course nature does not care about borders as it is a natural evolving phenomenon.

Dutchy wrote:

But let's strongly disagree that population size does matter in this debate, because comparing Vatican City with China absolutely makes no sense at all.

But if you want to be part of a minuscule group of people on earth that says that they need to go by only per country, well please do so, if that is the only parameter that actually fits your narrative of not wanting to do something.

For the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere the only number is the aggregate amount and who is emitting those gases. So comparing your example of Vatican City with China the Chinese are the only logical conclusion

Dutchy wrote:

But if you want to be part of a minuscule group of people on earth that says that they need to go by only per country, well please do so, if that is the only parameter that actually fits your narrative of not wanting to do something.

Thank you as I’m not seeking your permission to do so no narratives are needed.
Do you agree that China produces more greenhouse gases than Vatican City into the atmosphere?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

As China being the worlds cheap as chips manufacturers that’s policy position by the CCP and business position by private enterprise.

Are you also suggesting that international trade be suspended because of the climate emissions consumption

That is just a complete bull, nobody is suggesting that.

So you actually agree that there is necessary amount of emissions that has to be expelled so people can enjoy a comfortable level economic support and lifestyle

Dutchy wrote:

But it would only be fair to count some of those emissions towards the products produced and where it is consumed, don't you think it is fair? Or do you want to have the emissions be counted with China and the benefit of the consumption with an Australian? Clear sign of the way you are thinking that consumption and the burden of that consumption is not connected in your train of thought, but in real life is.

By that matrix then Australia levels are reduced substantially because Australian exports a fair amount of the raw materials need for the supply chain. Do you agree with that?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Of course it can the building and placement policy of said infrastructure is a nation building exercise that enhance the overall quality of life for its inhabitants

Actually, the way suburbs are put up, isn't enhancing the overall quality of life. That is the main point there. Sitting in a car to go anywhere does not contribute to the quality of life.

Would have to disagree there. As it depends on the destination and the event or necessity for the travel. The modern motor vehicle does enhance the quality of life for its convenience safety and ease of travel especially if traveling with a number of children.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

That has no impact if it hi or low density housing. The amount of service are predicated on the population levels of a given area all that means the ambulance ratio to population in the high density has to increase to meet the same matrix of your 15 min arrival time

Really? Arrival time has two components: speed and distance. With low-density housing distance does increase. So the logical conclusion is it does matter, matters a lot even.

All it means is the services are spread out rather then congregated in one location the ambulance to population ration stays the same for the geographical area

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why would they need to do that for ambulance coverage, not everyone owns there own home so if they only place ambulance coverage on new homes it would not produce the required income stream to the government to provide the service here in Australia new development pay towards the cost of putting the infrastructure in place such as road sewage service power and so court

Each nation has a different formula that place the tax burden for service on the population

You brought up America, there is actually a model of earnings and cost for the city: high-density low cost (or actually a plus), low-density high cost (and a minus). Putting up for the cost of putting the infrastructure the is one thing, but actually maintaining it year on year is quite another.

America?

Not sure what you are debating here the revenue stream to fund ambulance services or placing infrastructure

Maintenance of the infrastructure year on year has to be done irrespective of its location

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dunno you personal circumstances and don’t want to know. It’s not a competition on how one can live the least quality of life

And that is a false statement about linking carbon footprint to quality of life. Guess it is better for one to think about the other with all the possibilities than actually know. Anyway, the carbon footprint of most western nations has gone down and the quality of life has gone up.

Not sure how it’s false statement when I don’t know how you live nor do I care.

If you are happy that’s the important thing is it not?

But by your own statement the carbon footprint is being reduced by new technology what’s the problem why does one need to change there lifestyle as it’s already having a positive affect.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The houses are part of my investment strategy, not unheard of you know.

1 did say two cars in restoration, so now it’s not green to recycle LOL

Might be one of the reasons the Ozzies have a large footprint, don't you think? Their way of life.

Not according to you, you did say modern practices have reduce our carbon footprint. Also the AusGov is committed to building a million new homes

And the average age Australians keep their cars is roughly 10+ years

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Everything requires maintenance mate.even the bloke who rides his pushy to work needs tyres and brakes

Yes, so? You said self-sufficient, not me. Just giving examples of ways you are absolutely not.

I said “pretty much self-sufficient” I didn’t imply I was a doomsday prepper or survivalist or want to live like pre-industrial times

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

My livening habits no I doubt it very much but it does help keep people employed.

So, is that a reason to pollute?

It’s a fact of life even the caveman emitted greenhouse gases. Only way you will get the human species to stop is to make them go the way of the dinosaurs

But it seems strange that you highlight my air travel and condemn me for making a contribution to society considering when we are posting on a forum about planes and air travel lol.

Are you secretly advocating for the collapse of the airline industry and a return to the age of sail ships?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Everything I do makes money or reduce my cost.

Sorry mate, that does not sound very high quality of life to me.

Each to their own and what makes them happy. But I live very comfortably and don’t give a damn if you approve or not. Go give a hug to Greta she must be more sympathetic and more to your liking

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

My overseas travel is by only necessary which also held contribute to people’s employment in each place I go so one could call it a necessary evil if one wanted too

To put it in your own words: The supposed climate greenhouse gases don’t care why greenhouse gases are emitted it only cares about total amount emitted. And really, "supposed" com'on, still in denial.

No just live in a modern world with all the convenience of it and one aspect is air-travel

Why don’t the world leaders instead of flying to these climate meeting just use Skype?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep to our current society standards my reliance on the government is very small to get services which a modern society every one is entitled too just that I’m not a burden on the UK or AU government

If a zombie attack happen or if nuclear war happened my lifestyle would certainly be changed if that what you mean

Reliance on the government is something totally different than what we are talking about. And with pollution, pollution is free for the polluter, society fits that bill. In that way, you definitely are a burden on the Australian or UK government. Not nice to realize, perhaps, but it is something we have to accept, even I, with my low carbon footprint but still "doing alrght" income.

Nope you admit it yourself you still emit carbon do you still use use modern conveniences just like I do

But I’m glad you are doing alright Dutchy because so am I

mxaxai wrote:

A101 wrote:

I don’t have a electricity bill as I’m not on the grid, not by choice but where I built the house it was cheaper to go solar and wind turbine than pay for the power to be connected and laid.

And where were your solar panels built? Probably in China. Does your house have batteries to keep you powered at night, in case there is no wind? Again, those are most likely produced in China (or South Korea). Where does the fuel for your cars, boats and planes come from? Probably extracted somewhere in South-East Asia and refined in Singapore. Your clothes and other electrical appliances? Not from Australia or the UK either.

Any environmental damage incurred while making or transporting things is counted towards the producing country's balance, even if it should be part of your personal footprint.

Who pays for the infrastructure to ship all that stuff to your (fairly remote) home? The Australian government, with taxes collected from the entire population. Who protects your precious property from undesirables and allows you to sue anyone who might break a contract? Oh, right, the government. Who guarantees open shipping lanes, provides access to foreign resources and negotiates advantageous (for you) trade agreements? Again, the government.

Don't pretend to be self-sufficient on your little isolated island of happiness when you're a member of society like everybody else. The higher your income or wealth, the more you profit from government-provided services and infrastructure.

The term “self-sufficiency” commonly evokes images of communes, yurts and 1970s hippies, most likely living off the land

More recently, it has been linked to an increase of interest in solar powered “off-grid” living, tiny houses, self grown food networks

I think I fall into that category

And just for you my solar panels were made in Australia yes I do have battery storage which are stamped made in Japan

I have private health insurance use private hospitals. No government infrastructure except for a dirt links my property where I reside in Australia effluent is treated onsite and grey water recycled. I pay my taxes my burden to the AusGov would be defined as a net contributor not a net benefactor

With all the 'arguments' given, we at least hit the core argument:

A101 wrote:

Each to their own and what makes them happy. But I live very comfortably and don’t give a damn if you approve or not. Go give a hug to Greta she must be more sympathetic and more to your liking

Don't change, regardless of what is happening, regardless of the consequences, regardless of all the science.

In economics and in an ecological context, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use, act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action in case there are too many users related to the available resources.

Source: link

The tragedy of the commons, the tragedy of our times.

A101 wrote:

I think I fall into that categor

that made me laugh, you really have no idea, really none if you think you are at par with those people. The Tiny House concept is a dead giveaway.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It’s hard to miss what one never bothered looking for. But hey, look at the bright side, at least we’re beginning to recognize colonialism for what it is - the elephant in the room anytime the north wants concessions from the south.

Too bad Pearson hasn’t figured it out yet.

If you insist it's about colonialism then should countries never being colonized before, like Ethiopia or Liberia, not be given any money under such climate reparation?

There is, I think, a self-evident difference between saying that all decisions should be made on former colonial status, and that colonialism and its effects should be factored into how funds should be collected.

It’s less a question of it being all “about colonialism”, and more about recognizing that colonialism has contributed negatively to some of the imbalances we’re seeing.

If you think what matter is how much colonization being historically conduscted in the past, then do you think countries like Russia, Turkey, China, Mongolia should contribute a significant part, and why?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

I think I fall into that categor

that made me laugh, you really have no idea, really none if you think you are at par with those people. The Tiny House concept is a dead giveaway.

How many tree saplings have you planted on your own property in the last year

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

[
The most obvious conclusion from the phenomenon "There are more than enough fund but not enough governance to effectively spend them to help the people" is to develop a governance system that can effectively control and spend the funding.

The same apply to US, Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and everywhere.

Well, yes, there are more than enough funds around (rich countries are, indeed, very rich). And yes, it is necessary to have good governance in place (unless, of course, one believes that good governance can’t exist because humans never learn from their mistakes).

But it’s also about figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount of money. And that goes back to how rich countries became rich in the first place. Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage…leads to inevitable disagreements.

I don’t think I need to rephrase what the Indian and Sri Lankan leaders said. They’re there for all to see.

Didn't you changed the subject> You were talking about the world being capable of pool together a fund more than enough for responding to significant major adverse event, instead of "rich countries being rich"
And "human never learn from mistakes" is THE reason why we need to create a system or organization that explicitly overcome this problem, not reason/excuse of why we do not do so.

And again, why "figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount" when you said there're more than enough?
And at least currently I don't see any countries being threatened to cut their emission so much that would affect their economic growth or industrialization, hence the premise doesn't seems correct in the first place.
I do not think countries should be required to cut their energy use to match their emission target, instead expanded adaption of renewable and nuclear should be the path to go forward in reducing emission while expanding energy usage around the world to improve world's living standard.

Also, when you claim "Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage", this reflect a false pretense that seem to claim it is only those "rich" countries who are "demanding" the world have less emission and avert climate change, thus developing countries need to "curb" the changes according to such demand from developed countries. Despite the fact that it is most widely recognized developing countries will be unproportionally significantly hit by climate change and thus many of them are campaigning for a global reduction of emission in order to prevent the expected rise in average global temperature increasing beyond threshold, thus your claim doesn't really make sense here.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

I think I fall into that categor

that made me laugh, you really have no idea, really none if you think you are at par with those people. The Tiny House concept is a dead giveaway.

How many tree saplings have you planted on your own property in the last year

You have no idea of the spirit and why of the people living in tiny houses. Comparing oneself to them with your lifestyle is just comical. Given your unwillingness to absorb new concepts and to learn, seeing your earlier statements, is another. Given your attitude toward how to live your life, you have much more in common with the boomer generation.

c933103 wrote:

If you think what matter is how much colonization being historically conduscted in the past, then do you think countries like Russia, Turkey, China, Mongolia should contribute a significant part, and why?

I don’t care much for whataboutery, but it’s particularly ill -suited here.

The reason the developing world distinguishes between run-of-the-mill invasions by nearby powers, and European colonialism, is because the former was about building and developing nations, while the latter was about exploiting them (with the added bonus - or antagonistic - value of racist suppression). The Mughals (descendants of the Mongols) were essentially Afghan invaders but they became of India. They married locally and they cultivated their lands. Akbar the Great was profoundly Indian. Victoria? Not so much.

Contrast that to 18th/19th century racism. Can’t marry locals because race. In fact, go out of your way to antagonize them because race. Invest selectively for resource extraction. And then get kicked out.

Where run of the mill invasions by nearby powers ended up building up local economies, colonialism degraded them. The former colonies recognize that distinction.

But of course, you’re welcome to ignore it. That won’t change their position though. So you can keep tilting at them with whataboutery, but unless you’re willing to understand their reasoning, well.. good luck.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

[
The most obvious conclusion from the phenomenon "There are more than enough fund but not enough governance to effectively spend them to help the people" is to develop a governance system that can effectively control and spend the funding.

The same apply to US, Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and everywhere.

Well, yes, there are more than enough funds around (rich countries are, indeed, very rich). And yes, it is necessary to have good governance in place (unless, of course, one believes that good governance can’t exist because humans never learn from their mistakes).

But it’s also about figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount of money. And that goes back to how rich countries became rich in the first place. Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage…leads to inevitable disagreements.

I don’t think I need to rephrase what the Indian and Sri Lankan leaders said. They’re there for all to see.

Didn't you changed the subject> You were talking about the world being capable of pool together a fund more than enough for responding to significant major adverse event, instead of "rich countries being rich"
And "human never learn from mistakes" is THE reason why we need to create a system or organization that explicitly overcome this problem, not reason/excuse of why we do not do so.

And again, why "figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount" when you said there're more than enough?
And at least currently I don't see any countries being threatened to cut their emission so much that would affect their economic growth or industrialization, hence the premise doesn't seems correct in the first place.
I do not think countries should be required to cut their energy use to match their emission target, instead expanded adaption of renewable and nuclear should be the path to go forward in reducing emission while expanding energy usage around the world to improve world's living standard.

Also, when you claim "Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage", this reflect a false pretense that seem to claim it is only those "rich" countries who are "demanding" the world have less emission and avert climate change, thus developing countries need to "curb" the changes according to such demand from developed countries. Despite the fact that it is most widely recognized developing countries will be unproportionally significantly hit by climate change and thus many of them are campaigning for a global reduction of emission in order to prevent the expected rise in average global temperature increasing beyond threshold, thus your claim doesn't really make sense here.

I don’t really know what to say here. We have developing countries explicitly objecting to temperature rise and energy utilization limits but what do they know since clearly you know more about their economic development strategies than they do. To wit:

c933103 wrote:

And at least currently I don't see any countries being threatened to cut their emission so much that would affect their economic growth or industrialization, hence the premise doesn't seems correct in the first place.

I’m inclined to take the Indian Prime Ministers word on it. He might know a thing or two more about the demands and requests.

The rest, frankly, I still don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. It’s self evident that rich countries have a lot of money, a good chunk of which was extracted from their colonies. It’s equally evident that they want developing countries to curb some types of energy usage. The only question that remains is how much they’re willing to pay back for those cuts.

It’s great and all that you think the Sri Lankan President’s premise is wrong but - regardless of how much more you know about Sri Lanka than he does, that is his considered opinion, and many developing countries agree with it. That’s an immutable fact. I don’t see the point in arguing about it.

You want to believe you’re right and they’re wrong, go for it.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

that made me laugh, you really have no idea, really none if you think you are at par with those people. The Tiny House concept is a dead giveaway.

How many tree saplings have you planted on your own property in the last year

You have no idea of the spirit and why of the people living in tiny houses. Comparing oneself to them with your lifestyle is just comical. Given your unwillingness to absorb new concepts and to learn, seeing your earlier statements, is another. Given your attitude toward how to live your life, you have much more in common with the boomer generation.

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If you think what matter is how much colonization being historically conduscted in the past, then do you think countries like Russia, Turkey, China, Mongolia should contribute a significant part, and why?

I don’t care much for whataboutery, but it’s particularly ill -suited here.

The reason the developing world distinguishes between run-of-the-mill invasions by nearby powers, and European colonialism, is because the former was about building and developing nations, while the latter was about exploiting them (with the added bonus - or antagonistic - value of racist suppression). The Mughals (descendants of the Mongols) were essentially Afghan invaders but they became of India. They married locally and they cultivated their lands. Akbar the Great was profoundly Indian. Victoria? Not so much.

Contrast that to 18th/19th century racism. Can’t marry locals because race. In fact, go out of your way to antagonize them because race. Invest selectively for resource extraction. And then get kicked out.

Where run of the mill invasions by nearby powers ended up building up local economies, colonialism degraded them. The former colonies recognize that distinction.

But of course, you’re welcome to ignore it. That won’t change their position though. So you can keep tilting at them with whataboutery, but unless you’re willing to understand their reasoning, well.. good luck.

Why do you think policies like no inter marriage or discrimination are either new or universal in 18th/19th century unlike the past?
"Colonialism degraded" local economies really depends on what country is being talked about. In situation like India https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/pov ... -rule.html this does not appears to be the case. Overall speaking most countries unlike India experienced increase in productivity under colonialism even if there could be severe problem caused by such controlling regime during such period of time that threaten and worsen the life of the people living there during such time.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Well, yes, there are more than enough funds around (rich countries are, indeed, very rich). And yes, it is necessary to have good governance in place (unless, of course, one believes that good governance can’t exist because humans never learn from their mistakes).

But it’s also about figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount of money. And that goes back to how rich countries became rich in the first place. Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage…leads to inevitable disagreements.

I don’t think I need to rephrase what the Indian and Sri Lankan leaders said. They’re there for all to see.

Didn't you changed the subject> You were talking about the world being capable of pool together a fund more than enough for responding to significant major adverse event, instead of "rich countries being rich"
And "human never learn from mistakes" is THE reason why we need to create a system or organization that explicitly overcome this problem, not reason/excuse of why we do not do so.

And again, why "figuring out how to calculate who contributes what amount" when you said there're more than enough?
And at least currently I don't see any countries being threatened to cut their emission so much that would affect their economic growth or industrialization, hence the premise doesn't seems correct in the first place.
I do not think countries should be required to cut their energy use to match their emission target, instead expanded adaption of renewable and nuclear should be the path to go forward in reducing emission while expanding energy usage around the world to improve world's living standard.

Also, when you claim "Extracting resources and wealth at gunpoint while demanding the same countries that were exploited should curb their development and energy usage", this reflect a false pretense that seem to claim it is only those "rich" countries who are "demanding" the world have less emission and avert climate change, thus developing countries need to "curb" the changes according to such demand from developed countries. Despite the fact that it is most widely recognized developing countries will be unproportionally significantly hit by climate change and thus many of them are campaigning for a global reduction of emission in order to prevent the expected rise in average global temperature increasing beyond threshold, thus your claim doesn't really make sense here.

I don’t really know what to say here. We have developing countries explicitly objecting to temperature rise and energy utilization limits but what do they know since clearly you know more about their economic development strategies than they do. To wit:

c933103 wrote:

And at least currently I don't see any countries being threatened to cut their emission so much that would affect their economic growth or industrialization, hence the premise doesn't seems correct in the first place.

I’m inclined to take the Indian Prime Ministers word on it. He might know a thing or two more about the demands and requests.

The rest, frankly, I still don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. It’s self evident that rich countries have a lot of money, a good chunk of which was extracted from their colonies. It’s equally evident that they want developing countries to curb some types of energy usage. The only question that remains is how much they’re willing to pay back for those cuts.

It’s great and all that you think the Sri Lankan President’s premise is wrong but - regardless of how much more you know about Sri Lanka than he does, that is his considered opinion, and many developing countries agree with it. That’s an immutable fact. I don’t see the point in arguing about it.

You want to believe you’re right and they’re wrong, go for it.

Some chief of developing countries frame it as demand and request because they care less about future of their own countries than leader of developed countries, despite it is their own countries.

As for "The rest, frankly, I still don’t understand what you’re trying to argue.",
> It’s self evident that rich countries have a lot of money,
That's not a reason why any sort of "reparation" should be done, simply because they have many money
> a good chunk of which was extracted from their colonies.
No. The wealth come from success in industrialization.
> It’s equally evident that they want developing countries to curb some types of energy usage.
No. Most projects now focus on having developing countries building more non fossil fuel. No one is complaining against China having more wind farm or nuclear reactors.
> The only question that remains is how much they’re willing to pay back for those cuts.
I do not believe any cuts should be made in the first place as this is unreasonable to people living in developing countries. And if this is to be supported by external fund then it will be unsustainable to the world too. Such sort of external fund system will also create reliance which again is also bad to development of developing countries. The cut in emission can only be dominately achieved through more efficient and greener way of using energy.
It help that emission are reduced but like it is unreasonable to expect most American switching to public transit or high density urban housing any time soon (It is worth promoting to push American per capita emission down to at least Western Europe level, but basing our earth's future on the betting of American *will* make such move is simply unrealistic and unresponsible), it is likewise not responsible and not realisitc to expect people in developing countries to remain a "low carbon life style" not by choice not by more efficient technology but by maintaining lower living standard.
And in fact, I think if any people from developing countries advocating such, they aren't actually thinking about what is good for their people, instead they simply want to cover up their failure to develop their own economy by assigning the blame onto alleged pressure from richer countries. Even countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh are developing at quite a steady pace in the current year contrary to such claimed pressure or demand.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

How many tree saplings have you planted on your own property in the last year

You have no idea of the spirit and why of the people living in tiny houses. Comparing oneself to them with your lifestyle is just comical. Given your unwillingness to absorb new concepts and to learn, seeing your earlier statements, is another. Given your attitude toward how to live your life, you have much more in common with the boomer generation.

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

It is the absolute quantity of emission being generated per capita that matter, instead of emission per unit of floor space

c933103 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You have no idea of the spirit and why of the people living in tiny houses. Comparing oneself to them with your lifestyle is just comical. Given your unwillingness to absorb new concepts and to learn, seeing your earlier statements, is another. Given your attitude toward how to live your life, you have much more in common with the boomer generation.

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

It is the absolute quantity of emission being generated per capita that matter, instead of emission per unit of floor space

I agree it’s the aggregate or total quantity in the atmosphere but using per capita or in the case floor space is not really an accurate measure

c933103 wrote:

Overall speaking most countries unlike India experienced increase in productivity under colonialism even if there could be severe problem caused by such controlling regime during such period of time that threaten and worsen the life of the people living there during such time.

We’re going in circles with this nonsensical “success came from industrialization” without acknowledging where the resources came from. Why do you think India was colonized? For the picturesque jungles?

But that aside, the quoted section tells us a lot about your worldview. Not that I necessarily agree with the premise:

Introducing slavery and similar modes of exploitation can increase productivity significantly, if one is inclined to look at it that way.

Especially if one thinks some peoples deserve it for their national incompetence. Which seems to be the case here.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

How many tree saplings have you planted on your own property in the last year

You have no idea of the spirit and why of the people living in tiny houses. Comparing oneself to them with your lifestyle is just comical. Given your unwillingness to absorb new concepts and to learn, seeing your earlier statements, is another. Given your attitude toward how to live your life, you have much more in common with the boomer generation.

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

It is irrelevant.

A101 wrote:

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

So now you do want to compare? You first said you didn't. If you want to, sure, then compare everything, not one aspect.

A101 wrote:

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

Sure, but you still haven't grasped what I actually said. It is the attitude and spirit.

A101 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

A101 wrote:

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

It is the absolute quantity of emission being generated per capita that matter, instead of emission per unit of floor space

I agree it’s the aggregate or total quantity in the atmosphere but using per capita or in the case floor space is not really an accurate measure

Lol, you do not agree, you do not agree that per capita matters, you think per country matters. And I fully agree per floor space doesn't matter, it is actually quite silly, nobody thinks like that.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Overall speaking most countries unlike India experienced increase in productivity under colonialism even if there could be severe problem caused by such controlling regime during such period of time that threaten and worsen the life of the people living there during such time.

We’re going in circles with this nonsensical “success came from industrialization” without acknowledging where the resources came from. Why do you think India was colonized? For the picturesque jungles?

But that aside, the quoted section tells us a lot about your worldview. Not that I necessarily agree with the premise:

Introducing slavery and similar modes of exploitation can increase productivity significantly, if one is inclined to look at it that way.

Especially if one thinks some peoples deserve it for their national incompetence. Which seems to be the case here.

What are resources necessary for success in industrialization? Even nowadays those countries which have greatest reserve of natural resources that are needed for industrial production generally aren't countries that are most industrialized, in our post-colonization world.
The colobnization of the world happened alongside industrialization because industrialization make it much easier for countries to project their power around the globe, so what countries used to do only to their neighbors are then being done to most parts of the earth outside their immediate proximity.
And I am pretty sure colonization doesn't equate slavery and such.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

It is irrelevant.

Is it?

It would help to reduce carbon you are so worried about as trees are the lungs of the earth

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

So now you do want to compare? You first said you didn't. If you want to, sure, then compare everything, not one aspect.

No you did, it was your claim that you have a lower carbon footprint. Then complain as I live off grid in Australia, but you only equate it to a tiny home that may not be as energy efficient and self reliant as my own situation

The true meaning of a watermelon, green on the outside red on the inside

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

Sure, but you still haven't grasped what I actually said. It is the attitude and spirit.

Action speaks louder than words.

It seems your idea of reducing carbon is to disband the airline industry and increase the size of the concrete jungle and don’t plant any trees

c933103 wrote:

What are resources necessary for success in industrialization? Even nowadays those countries which have greatest reserve of natural resources that are needed for industrial production generally aren't countries that are most industrialized, in our post-colonization world.

The countries that have the most resources aren’t doing as well because they were colonized precisely because they had the most resources. Not because some European sailor was looking for a vacation home.

Labour, capital, raw material… where do you think they came from? Where was the cotton for British textiles coming from? Who was farming and collecting that? (Raw material and labour) Why was India forced to buy easily available salt shipped all the way from the UK? (Capital)

Don’t worry, I get it. You want to pin this on the people of the country for not bettering themselves, while ignoring what was taken from them. It’s daft, because sooner or later you’re going to walk yourself into blaming their particular characteristics as human beings, which takes us right back to the racist theories of the 18th century: simply put, some races aren’t as capable of being as advanced as others.

Perhaps that’s the case. Perhaps you believe that if India was full of Europeans, Koreans and Taiwanese, colonialism would have made no difference. It’s the Indians that are the problem here - by virtue of being Indian.

But then say that. Why shy away from what you actually believe?

c933103 wrote:

The colobnization of the world happened alongside industrialization because industrialization make it much easier for countries to project their power around the globe, so what countries used to do only to their neighbors are then being done to most parts of the earth outside their immediate proximity.
And I am pretty sure colonization doesn't equate slavery and such.

Mmm no. For one, no raw materials or captive markets (aka colonies), no industrialization on the same scale.

Anyway, there’s really no way for you to backtrack from the following:

c933103 wrote:

Overall speaking most countries unlike India experienced increase in productivity under colonialism even if there could be severe problem caused by such controlling regime during such period of time that threaten and worsen the life of the people living there during such time.

Arguing that colonizers made colonies more productive by making natives work more for free - or a pittance - while actively reducing their quality of life… is the kind of spurious logic that justifies slavers.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

So I’ll take that as zero tree saplings plant

It is irrelevant.

Is it?

It would help to reduce carbon you are so worried about as trees are the lungs of the earth

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You are the one comparing carbon footprint correct?

So now you do want to compare? You first said you didn't. If you want to, sure, then compare everything, not one aspect.

No you did, it was your claim that you have a lower carbon footprint. Then complain as I live off grid in Australia, but you only equate it to a tiny home that may not be as energy efficient and self reliant as my own situation

The true meaning of a watermelon, green on the outside red on the inside

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Being in a tiny home does not mean it has a high rating of energy efficiency in consumption or heating and cooling. There are large homes the have higher ratings than tiny homes but that comes down to how deep the person’s building it’s pockets are.

Sure, but you still haven't grasped what I actually said. It is the attitude and spirit.

Action speaks louder than words.

It seems your idea of reducing carbon is to disband the airline industry and increase the size of the concrete jungle and don’t plant any trees

Carbon not released is not something you have to capture/compensate for. Given your travel habits and way of living, you are far off from being green. But, if you fl better about yourself, thinking you are green and you are net positive, just go ahead, mate. There are many who use self-deception as a coping mechanism.

But let's end in agreement: action speaks louder than words.

(and no doubt you want the last word, so I'll let you have it)

Dutchy wrote:

Carbon not released is not something you have to capture/compensate for

Agree on the carbon not released but one of the aspects to also reduce historical emissions that haven’t been able to capture.

If those emissions do not matter and you are not interested in trying to reduce those then why the greed in paying for historical emissions?

Dutchy wrote:

Given your travel habits and way of living,

Sorry to disappoint old bean but that plane is flying irrespective or not I’m on it along with 3-400 others

Dutchy wrote:

you are far off from being green

I didn’t claim to be green I said I was pretty much self sufficient but of a difference

Dutchy wrote:

thinking you are green and you are net positive, just go ahead, mate.

I said I was net positive to the economy of both AU/UK as I am not a burden on the system

Dutchy wrote:

There are many who use self-deception as a coping mechanism.

Where is the deception?

I harvest and store my own power harvest and recycle my own water supply. I grow and contribute to the food supply chain in my local area.

I don’t think there is any deception in any of that

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What are resources necessary for success in industrialization? Even nowadays those countries which have greatest reserve of natural resources that are needed for industrial production generally aren't countries that are most industrialized, in our post-colonization world.

The countries that have the most resources aren’t doing as well because they were colonized precisely because they had the most resources. Not because some European sailor was looking for a vacation home.

Labour, capital, raw material… where do you think they came from? Where was the cotton for British textiles coming from? Who was farming and collecting that? (Raw material and labour) Why was India forced to buy easily available salt shipped all the way from the UK? (Capital)

Don’t worry, I get it. You want to pin this on the people of the country for not bettering themselves, while ignoring what was taken from them. It’s daft, because sooner or later you’re going to walk yourself into blaming their particular characteristics as human beings, which takes us right back to the racist theories of the 18th century: simply put, some races aren’t as capable of being as advanced as others.

Perhaps that’s the case. Perhaps you believe that if India was full of Europeans, Koreans and Taiwanese, colonialism would have made no difference. It’s the Indians that are the problem here - by virtue of being Indian.

But then say that. Why shy away from what you actually believe?

What you claim to be fruit of colonization are nowadays enjoyed entirely by countries in Middle East due to their oil and their ability to earn money from those oil. Why aren't they industrializing into developed countries?

c933103 wrote:

The colobnization of the world happened alongside industrialization because industrialization make it much easier for countries to project their power around the globe, so what countries used to do only to their neighbors are then being done to most parts of the earth outside their immediate proximity.
And I am pretty sure colonization doesn't equate slavery and such.

Mmm no. For one, no raw materials or captive markets (aka colonies), no industrialization on the same scale.

Nowadays countries can obtain them even without colonization, yet as you can see many countries remain underdeveloped.

Anyway, there’s really no way for you to backtrack from the following:

c933103 wrote:

Overall speaking most countries unlike India experienced increase in productivity under colonialism even if there could be severe problem caused by such controlling regime during such period of time that threaten and worsen the life of the people living there during such time.

Arguing that colonizers made colonies more productive by making natives work more for free - or a pittance - while actively reducing their quality of life… is the kind of spurious logic that justifies slavers.

ALthough there are some places this happened, I am not aware of it being a general truth that colonization involve the adaption of either forced labor or labor at below market rate.

c933103 wrote:

What you claim to be fruit of colonization are nowadays enjoyed entirely by countries in Middle East due to their oil and their ability to earn money from those oil. Why aren't they industrializing into developed countries?

Middle Eastern countries aren’t industrialized? There airports make North American ones look positively … errr.. developing world.

c933103 wrote:

Nowadays countries can obtain them even without colonization, yet as you can see many countries remain underdeveloped.

Simple question: are India and China more developed than they were under colonialism? Bangladesh? Vietnam?

Or put another way, which countries are underdeveloped relative to their status as colonies.

Not holding my breath.

c933103 wrote:

ALthough there are some places this happened, I am not aware of it being a general truth that colonization involve the adaption of either forced labor or labor at below market rate.

Googling “colonialism” and “labour” would be a good start.

And while you’re at it, maybe do some research on colonialism, “the white man’a burden” and, of course, what drove Columbus to go looking for India (PS - he wasn’t looking for the poorest place in the world.) Or, for that matter, what the Opium War was about. It’ll come as a surprise, I’m sure.

But I suppose your perspective makes sense if one views the world based on the notion that some races are inherently superior to others, even if that can’t be said in polite company.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What you claim to be fruit of colonization are nowadays enjoyed entirely by countries in Middle East due to their oil and their ability to earn money from those oil. Why aren't they industrializing into developed countries?

Middle Eastern countries aren’t industrialized? There airports make North American ones look positively … errr.. developing world.

Primary sector that focus on extraction is still their dominant industry, they failed to evolve toward more value adding part of the industry, for example what companies like Shell's main source of profit

c933103 wrote:

Nowadays countries can obtain them even without colonization, yet as you can see many countries remain underdeveloped.

Simple question: are India and China more developed than they were under colonialism? Bangladesh? Vietnam?

Or put another way, which countries are underdeveloped relative to their status as colonies.

Not holding my breath.

What definition of colonialism were you adopting that consider China to be under it in the past? By Mongol, Manchu, or Marxists?
And tge fact that ports allowed by Imperial China to foreign countries to settle being more well developed than entirety of rest of China, including places that were previously barren land, showed what you want to seek proof.

c933103 wrote:

ALthough there are some places this happened, I am not aware of it being a general truth that colonization involve the adaption of either forced labor or labor at below market rate.

Googling “colonialism” and “labour” would be a good start.

And while you’re at it, maybe do some research on colonialism, “the white man’a burden” and, of course, what drove Columbus to go looking for India (PS - he wasn’t looking for the poorest place in the world.) Or, for that matter, what the Opium War was about. It’ll come as a surprise, I’m sure.

But I suppose your perspective makes sense if one views the world based on the notion that some races are inherently superior to others, even if that can’t be said in polite company.

They're in search for trade of like importation of spice and exportation of opium. Those aren't forced labor even if some of those result in horrible consequence to their residents.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What you claim to be fruit of colonization are nowadays enjoyed entirely by countries in Middle East due to their oil and their ability to earn money from those oil. Why aren't they industrializing into developed countries?

Middle Eastern countries aren’t industrialized? There airports make North American ones look positively … errr.. developing world.

Primary sector that focus on extraction is still their dominant industry, they failed to evolve toward more value adding part of the industry, for example what companies like Shell's main source of profit

c933103 wrote:

Nowadays countries can obtain them even without colonization, yet as you can see many countries remain underdeveloped.

Simple question: are India and China more developed than they were under colonialism? Bangladesh? Vietnam?

Or put another way, which countries are underdeveloped relative to their status as colonies.

Not holding my breath.

What definition of colonialism were you adopting that consider China to be under it in the past? By Mongol, Manchu, or Marxists?
And tge fact that ports allowed by Imperial China to foreign countries to settle being more well developed than entirety of rest of China, including places that were previously barren land, showed what you want to seek proof.

c933103 wrote:

ALthough there are some places this happened, I am not aware of it being a general truth that colonization involve the adaption of either forced labor or labor at below market rate.

Googling “colonialism” and “labour” would be a good start.

And while you’re at it, maybe do some research on colonialism, “the white man’a burden” and, of course, what drove Columbus to go looking for India (PS - he wasn’t looking for the poorest place in the world.) Or, for that matter, what the Opium War was about. It’ll come as a surprise, I’m sure.

But I suppose your perspective makes sense if one views the world based on the notion that some races are inherently superior to others, even if that can’t be said in polite company.

They're in search for trade of like importation of spice and exportation of opium. Those aren't forced labor even if some of those result in horrible consequence to their residents.

Alright, let’s go with your premise that it was all just a free trade agreement without ….errr… the other parties agreement.

When someone has to force someone (under threat of violence, imprisonment or death) else to export its raw materials and wealth (e.g. salt laws), does that fall in within the norm of acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

When someone literally wages war on someone else to force them to buy opium (and we’re seeing how debilitating that can be in the Opioid crisis), does that constitute acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Notwithstanding thousands of articles on the practice of forced labour in colonies (someone still hasn’t done their research), is inflicting “horrible consequences” on other countries in the name of trade acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Middle Eastern countries aren’t industrialized? There airports make North American ones look positively … errr.. developing world.

Primary sector that focus on extraction is still their dominant industry, they failed to evolve toward more value adding part of the industry, for example what companies like Shell's main source of profit

Simple question: are India and China more developed than they were under colonialism? Bangladesh? Vietnam?

Or put another way, which countries are underdeveloped relative to their status as colonies.

Not holding my breath.

What definition of colonialism were you adopting that consider China to be under it in the past? By Mongol, Manchu, or Marxists?
And tge fact that ports allowed by Imperial China to foreign countries to settle being more well developed than entirety of rest of China, including places that were previously barren land, showed what you want to seek proof.

Googling “colonialism” and “labour” would be a good start.

And while you’re at it, maybe do some research on colonialism, “the white man’a burden” and, of course, what drove Columbus to go looking for India (PS - he wasn’t looking for the poorest place in the world.) Or, for that matter, what the Opium War was about. It’ll come as a surprise, I’m sure.

But I suppose your perspective makes sense if one views the world based on the notion that some races are inherently superior to others, even if that can’t be said in polite company.

They're in search for trade of like importation of spice and exportation of opium. Those aren't forced labor even if some of those result in horrible consequence to their residents.

Alright, let’s go with your premise that it was all just a free trade agreement without ….errr… the other parties agreement.

When someone has to force someone (under threat of violence, imprisonment or death) else to export its raw materials and wealth (e.g. salt laws), does that fall in within the norm of acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

When someone literally wages war on someone else to force them to buy opium (and we’re seeing how debilitating that can be in the Opioid crisis), does that constitute acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Notwithstanding thousands of articles on the practice of forced labour in colonies (someone still hasn’t done their research), is inflicting “horrible consequences” on other countries in the name of trade acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Colonized nations have right to say they're mistreated by colonizers in the past and they can demand compensation, but that is 100% outside scope of something like "climate reparation" as this would be reparation of colonialism. I won't reject such form of demand but they are clearly outside the scope of discussion of this topic.
And trying to fuse in such desire to demand compensation over colonialism into climate talk is not conductive to help solving climate issues, including fixing damages caused by extreme climate events, the premise of having such a fund in the first place.

Also, if the question is to "reconcile the relationship between two", then it should merely be discussion between the two being involved, it shouldn't be a platform for all 200 countries in the world to discuss together, each of them have different history with respect to colonialism. Not to mention that have nothing to do with climate and using the venue of climate discussion to discuss that is wasting the time of tackling climate issues.

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Primary sector that focus on extraction is still their dominant industry, they failed to evolve toward more value adding part of the industry, for example what companies like Shell's main source of profit

What definition of colonialism were you adopting that consider China to be under it in the past? By Mongol, Manchu, or Marxists?
And tge fact that ports allowed by Imperial China to foreign countries to settle being more well developed than entirety of rest of China, including places that were previously barren land, showed what you want to seek proof.


They're in search for trade of like importation of spice and exportation of opium. Those aren't forced labor even if some of those result in horrible consequence to their residents.

Alright, let’s go with your premise that it was all just a free trade agreement without ….errr… the other parties agreement.

When someone has to force someone (under threat of violence, imprisonment or death) else to export its raw materials and wealth (e.g. salt laws), does that fall in within the norm of acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

When someone literally wages war on someone else to force them to buy opium (and we’re seeing how debilitating that can be in the Opioid crisis), does that constitute acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Notwithstanding thousands of articles on the practice of forced labour in colonies (someone still hasn’t done their research), is inflicting “horrible consequences” on other countries in the name of trade acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Colonized nations have right to say they're mistreated by colonizers in the past and they can demand compensation, but that is 100% outside scope of something like "climate reparation" as this would be reparation of colonialism. I won't reject such form of demand but they are clearly outside the scope of discussion of this topic.
And trying to fuse in such desire to demand compensation over colonialism into climate talk is not conductive to help solving climate issues, including fixing damages caused by extreme climate events, the premise of having such a fund in the first place.

Also, if the question is to "reconcile the relationship between two", then it should merely be discussion between the two being involved, it shouldn't be a platform for all 200 countries in the world to discuss together, each of them have different history with respect to colonialism. Not to mention that have nothing to do with climate and using the venue of climate discussion to discuss that is wasting the time of tackling climate issues.

The only reason it keeps popping up in the climate context is because the former colonizers want the former colonies to curb certain types of energy usage, and the former colonies aren’t willing to accept the costs. It really is that simple. “Reparations” is a charged term, largely because of how toxic the US slavery debate has become. But in essence, that’s what it is - “the north industrialized at souths cost, don’t expect the south to pick up the bill for the climate clean ups through deferred development”.

Bilateral, multilateral - I’m not fussed about how they go about things. That’s rather besides the point. The point is that they are taking a renewed and strong stand on it, and it’s going to remain an obstacle for a while yet. The difference between now and say 30 years ago is that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot - these former colonies are getting richer and larger at a much faster pace than the north, so the power dynamic on demands/concessions is shifting on a yearly basis.

Which means we’ll see more and more of these Pearson type articles decrying why the developing world keeps turning the screws instead of being appreciative of all the “benefits” of colonization.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Alright, let’s go with your premise that it was all just a free trade agreement without ….errr… the other parties agreement.

When someone has to force someone (under threat of violence, imprisonment or death) else to export its raw materials and wealth (e.g. salt laws), does that fall in within the norm of acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

When someone literally wages war on someone else to force them to buy opium (and we’re seeing how debilitating that can be in the Opioid crisis), does that constitute acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Notwithstanding thousands of articles on the practice of forced labour in colonies (someone still hasn’t done their research), is inflicting “horrible consequences” on other countries in the name of trade acceptable behaviour? If not, how do your reconcile the relationship between the two?

Colonized nations have right to say they're mistreated by colonizers in the past and they can demand compensation, but that is 100% outside scope of something like "climate reparation" as this would be reparation of colonialism. I won't reject such form of demand but they are clearly outside the scope of discussion of this topic.
And trying to fuse in such desire to demand compensation over colonialism into climate talk is not conductive to help solving climate issues, including fixing damages caused by extreme climate events, the premise of having such a fund in the first place.

Also, if the question is to "reconcile the relationship between two", then it should merely be discussion between the two being involved, it shouldn't be a platform for all 200 countries in the world to discuss together, each of them have different history with respect to colonialism. Not to mention that have nothing to do with climate and using the venue of climate discussion to discuss that is wasting the time of tackling climate issues.

The only reason it keeps popping up in the climate context is because the former colonizers want the former colonies to curb certain types of energy usage, and the former colonies aren’t willing to accept the costs. It really is that simple. “Reparations” is a charged term, largely because of how toxic the US slavery debate has become. But in essence, that’s what it is - “the north industrialized at souths cost, don’t expect the south to pick up the bill for the climate clean ups through deferred development”.

Bilateral, multilateral - I’m not fussed about how they go about things. That’s rather besides the point. The point is that they are taking a renewed and strong stand on it, and it’s going to remain an obstacle for a while yet. The difference between now and say 30 years ago is that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot - these former colonies are getting richer and larger at a much faster pace than the north, so the power dynamic on demands/concessions is shifting on a yearly basis.

Which means we’ll see more and more of these Pearson type articles decrying why the developing world keeps turning the screws instead of being appreciative of all the “benefits” of colonization.

If you observed the fact that developing countries are growing at a faster rate than developed countries, then shouldn't it also mean developing countries are becoming more capable of dealing with the issue instead of asking for fund from other countries?
And again where in the world do you think developing countries are being asked to reduce energy usage?

c933103 wrote:

If you observed the fact that developing countries are growing at a faster rate than developed countries, then shouldn't it also mean developing countries are becoming more capable of dealing with the issue instead of asking for fund from other countries?

Should a man forsake everything stolen from him just because his salary keeps going up?

Principle. It’s the darnedest thing.

c933103 wrote:

And again where in the world do you think developing countries are being asked to reduce energy usage?

Think it’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t actually know what’s going on. Which begs the question: do you have anything to substantiate your arguments?

“Attempts are made to shut the path and resources for developing nations through which developed nations reached where they are today. In past decades, a web of different terminologies was spun for this. But the aim has always been one, to stop the progress of developing nations," he added.”

Referring to the recent COP26 summit, the PM said that the “colonial mindset" was in public view when the developed nations that have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, tried to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions.”

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/col ... 37872.html

The real is issue will be the countries paying these “reparations” are uniformity democratic hence the governments making these promises depend on voters for their stay in power. Necessarily the money will come, by and large, from the majority of the population, not a few “rich” guys. The middle class, as they realize they’re gonna get skinned for the money will reject the policy. The middle class will lose because those nations will have less to invest in productivity, the main driver of wage increases. The poor will also lose badly from less investment—fewer jobs created.

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If you observed the fact that developing countries are growing at a faster rate than developed countries, then shouldn't it also mean developing countries are becoming more capable of dealing with the issue instead of asking for fund from other countries?

Should a man forsake everything stolen from him just because his salary keeps going up?

Principle. It’s the darnedest thing.

c933103 wrote:

And again where in the world do you think developing countries are being asked to reduce energy usage?

Think it’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t actually know what’s going on. Which begs the question: do you have anything to substantiate your arguments?

“Attempts are made to shut the path and resources for developing nations through which developed nations reached where they are today. In past decades, a web of different terminologies was spun for this. But the aim has always been one, to stop the progress of developing nations," he added.”

Referring to the recent COP26 summit, the PM said that the “colonial mindset" was in public view when the developed nations that have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, tried to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions.”

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/col ... 37872.html

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If you observed the fact that developing countries are growing at a faster rate than developed countries, then shouldn't it also mean developing countries are becoming more capable of dealing with the issue instead of asking for fund from other countries?

Should a man forsake everything stolen from him just because his salary keeps going up?

Principle. It’s the darnedest thing.

c933103 wrote:

And again where in the world do you think developing countries are being asked to reduce energy usage?

Think it’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t actually know what’s going on. Which begs the question: do you have anything to substantiate your arguments?

“Attempts are made to shut the path and resources for developing nations through which developed nations reached where they are today. In past decades, a web of different terminologies was spun for this. But the aim has always been one, to stop the progress of developing nations," he added.”

Referring to the recent COP26 summit, the PM said that the “colonial mindset" was in public view when the developed nations that have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, tried to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions.”

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/col ... 37872.html

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Colonialism is just a distraction from the main issue. That talk is just plan greed from the poor nations

To blame our past when at the time they had little idea of any such repercussions and what was the alternative at the time?.........nothing it was either advance with what the knew or remain static no advancement that’s just not how the world works advancement has been happening since day dot

c933103 wrote:

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Maybe read that post again. I’m just referencing what developing countries leaders are themselves saying. The quotes are all there, “colonialism” and all. Don’t like it? Too bad. It isn’t going away.

As to “discussing” any of this, its hard to discuss anything when one thinks colonialism was a free trade agreement with some unfortunate side effects for the colonized - including, evidently, that they weren’t as capable as Koreans and Taiwanese.

I don’t think I’ve read an interpretation of the Opium Wars as absurd as the “it was just about imports and exports”. It’s plainly evident that your knowledge of colonialism precludes any type of “discussing”.

A101 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Should a man forsake everything stolen from him just because his salary keeps going up?

Principle. It’s the darnedest thing.



Think it’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t actually know what’s going on. Which begs the question: do you have anything to substantiate your arguments?

“Attempts are made to shut the path and resources for developing nations through which developed nations reached where they are today. In past decades, a web of different terminologies was spun for this. But the aim has always been one, to stop the progress of developing nations," he added.”

Referring to the recent COP26 summit, the PM said that the “colonial mindset" was in public view when the developed nations that have benefitted from fossil fuel-powered industrial growth, tried to persuade India to cut down carbon emissions.”

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/col ... 37872.html

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Colonialism is just a distraction from the main issue. That talk is just plan greed from the poor nations

To blame our past when at the time they had little idea of any such repercussions and what was the alternative at the time?.........nothing it was either advance with what the knew or remain static no advancement that’s just not how the world works advancement has been happening since day dot

Bit rich coming from someone who posted an article on climate change, with no apparent interest in climate change, solely to take potshots at developing countries for calling out colonialism.

The alternative at the time was to not treat humans as equivalents of dogs. But “Indians and dogs not allowed” was a conscious choice. Racism against non-whites in their own homelands was a conscious choice. “Advancement” did not require racism. That was a conscious choice.

And now those pesky Indians and Africans won’t shut up about it.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Very clearly you aren't discussing, and aren't interested in answereing questioning about point raised concerning climate reparation, and instead redirect every parts of the discussion into colonialism

Colonialism is just a distraction from the main issue. That talk is just plan greed from the poor nations

To blame our past when at the time they had little idea of any such repercussions and what was the alternative at the time?.........nothing it was either advance with what the knew or remain static no advancement that’s just not how the world works advancement has been happening since day dot

Bit rich coming from someone who posted an article on climate change, with no apparent interest in climate change, solely to take potshots at developing countries for calling out colonialism.

The alternative at the time was to not treat humans as equivalents of dogs. But “Indians and dogs not allowed” was a conscious choice. Racism against non-whites in their own homelands was a conscious choice. “Advancement” did not require racism. That was a conscious choice.

And now those pesky Indians and Africans won’t shut up about it.

Nope just thought the open letter was funny but the reparations was just plain greed as they want the best of both worlds wanting them to bankroll the infrastructure plus reparations

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Colonialism is just a distraction from the main issue. That talk is just plan greed from the poor nations

To blame our past when at the time they had little idea of any such repercussions and what was the alternative at the time?.........nothing it was either advance with what the knew or remain static no advancement that’s just not how the world works advancement has been happening since day dot

Bit rich coming from someone who posted an article on climate change, with no apparent interest in climate change, solely to take potshots at developing countries for calling out colonialism.

The alternative at the time was to not treat humans as equivalents of dogs. But “Indians and dogs not allowed” was a conscious choice. Racism against non-whites in their own homelands was a conscious choice. “Advancement” did not require racism. That was a conscious choice.

And now those pesky Indians and Africans won’t shut up about it.

Nope just thought the open letter was funny but the reparations was just plain greed as they want the best of both worlds wanting them to bankroll the infrastructure plus reparations

Only in return for bankrolling this “Industrial Revolution” with blood.

As greed goes, it pales in comparison with the depths the UK plunged due to its own greed. And still struggles to come to terms with. Literally killing people and treating fellow humans as sub-humans.

Probably why Pearson reacted so strongly. Truth cut too close to home it seems. Guess it hurt.