The lake doesn’t know or care how many people live in the house…or even what a house is. But 5 gallons of pollution is more than 1. Of course, the actual flaw in this argument would be ‘but the house putting in 1 gallon has been polluting for over 100 years while the house putting in 5 has only been doing that for a decade’. But from the perspective of those living there right now, today, the ones who are putting in 1 gallon are being asked to make a heavier sacrifice than those putting in 5, so it’s going to rankle. Especially when folks go out of their way to make excuses and handwave the issue, as well as give them a pass that is going to allow them to pollute away for the next 10 or so years with no guarantee that in the end the 5 gallon polluters will ever actually do shit about it, as opposed to propaganda SAYING they will.
I think the idea is that if I don’t personally pollute as much as every other living person put together, then I’m okay! In fact I totally need to pollute more!
Well, about being wrong:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/06/11/helping-china-fight-air-pollution
Blue-sky thinking: how China’s crackdown on pollution is paying off
As they say, there is a lot of work to be done, but this shows IMHO that many conservative sources are just stuck on not reporting what progress China is doing on this front, or I should say that based on what I see coming from many conservatives here, a lot of their sources are not reporting things like the clampdown on coal use and how even on several of the new or remaining coal plants there are more controls on their pollution and at the same time a push to deploy more wind, solar and nuclear power.
Let’s say the people in the two person house have a lot more money than those in the 20 person house. And they say, despite the fact that they pollute twice as much per capita, they won’t do anything about it because all the people in the 20 person house pollutes more collectively. This will definitely motivate the people in the bigger house to sacrifice to pollute less.
If 16 people from the second house jump in the lake, problem solved, right?
Actually, everyone needs to pollute less.
Chinese investment in solar says it is not just propaganda. I haven’t had the good fortune to smother in Peking pollution, but I have been in the Hong Kong Haze (band name!) that blows in from the Mainland. They have more incentive to do something about this than getting in good with Al Gore.
Weed strain!
People have been bitching about the left-lean of the board for about two decades now. It’s nothing new.
Personally, I think the board is overall, just moderately left of center, but a LOT of the more hard-left types are very vocal and snarky about it, and give the impression the board is further left than it actually is.
I’m not giving China a pass, I’m explaining why, when we’re talking about measures that the US should be taking, the excuse of “But…China!” doesn’t work.
Personally I think talking in terms of absolute footprint is silly but we have to at least pick one:
- If we’re talking about absolute footprint then the US is the second-worst polluter, and the highest polluter above us is doing a hell of a lot more to try to reduce their footprint
- If we’re talking per capita footprint the US is still among the very worst and needs to do a lot more, meanwhile China is just a medium-level polluter
The real pragmatic answer of course is that China has a huge population and is still developing so, yes, of course, a lot of the focus should be on ensuring that their footprint does not increase and can even start to come down.
But in the context of what the US should be doing, and remember this is a thread about US conservatives, there’s just no reason for this to come up at all. Get your own house in order and quit trying to find excuses.
Uhhh…
You’ll have to excuse my confusion; I figured that “global warming is a socialist plot to destroy America” and “global warming is real, caused by humans, and bad” are two mitually exclusive positions. What a stupid mistake to make on my part. :o Mea culpa.
:rolleyes:
blinks
Hang on, I’m trying to score points through distraction? This thread is about why conservatives reject climate change; I am not the one who brought up China.
To the issue of American climate policies, China is relevant only in a big-picture, “How do we really solve this problem globally” sense. We can clean up our own carbon footprint. We can take steps on our own - the US alone makes up 14.5% of world emissions. That’s a non-trivial piece of the puzzle, if we can get the US (and the EU, and other countries who care enough) carbon neutral.
But as said before, we’re not there yet. The majority of republicans in congress are climate deniers, and the more virulent climate deniers are the ones who get elevated to positions which should be dealing with climate change. You end up with farces like a hearing on climate change which has zero scientists as expert witnesses, instead inviting a non-scientist climate denialist known primarily for his absurd lies about climate change.
Maybe they know something you don’t. Maybe they don’t know something you do. Maybe they earnestly believe that we can make it work exclusively with renewables, and see nuclear as an unreasonable risk, or have problems with our lack of ability to safely store nuclear waste. I know this is a non-trivial disagreement - many on the left earnestly think that we can use solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. to fully cover our energy needs. This isn’t them “not caring”, this is them being wrong. Or, alternative possibility: them being right.
I’m not sure who’s right on this one. My point is this: policy disagreements on highly technical issues don’t always indicate insincerity. Typically, they indicate someone being wrong. I think my dad is wrong when he argues that nuclear is unsafe. I don’t think this is in any way him showing that he doesn’t care about climate change, I think he’s just bought into a lot of the hype around Fukushima “poisoning the pacific”. Similarly, I see no reason to believe that Inhofe doesn’t legitimately believe that climate change is a lie because something something bible - I just see that as a very good reason to get him removed from a position of national power.
Only if you’re incredibly uncharitable.
Like, the equivalent of this would be me saying that because ExTank is wrong about climate change, he’s being insincere and intentionally spreading misinformation on this forum. I think we’d all recognize that claim as uncharitable and unfair, right? (Just so we’re 100% clear - I don’t think that, I think he’s just wrong for very normal reasons.) So why assume the mainstream democratic position, that we can resolve global warming and cover our energy needs without a big push for nuclear power - even assuming that it’s totally wrong - is a matter of bad faith that shows that they don’t really care about climate change? Isn’t the more straightforward explanation that they’re simply wrong? I mean, for cryin’ out loud, they’re certainly not the side that’s the most wrong on this issue. :mad: The Trump administration’s EPA just rolled back mileage standards, and is considering fudging the data on the harm CO2 causes for the sake of having it no longer labeled a pollutant.
Would you like to respond to ExTank? 
He has me on ignore and I think it’d mean more to him if he got a response from someone on “his side”.
And so, to ‘prove’ your point, you link to a fluff article that looks uncritically at the issue from the Guardian and a better article that still doesn’t exactly dig deeply by The World Bank? After accusing me of using ‘conservative sources’ to get my information on China from. 
Oh, and I’m just wrong somehow because your fluff article says that progress is being made (says the guy in Beijing who got it straight from the Chinese government and social media).
No doubt China is (in fits and starts) trying to tackle it’s air pollution issue. It’s a major problem for the people and one that the party kind of knows it needs to deal with. But you have to understand how their government works in order to evaluate how they are going about it. They do things like…outlaw outdoor barbecue vendors in Beijing, blaming a lot of the pollution on that source. Sure, they replace some of the older coal plants…with newer ones. Even if they have a push to clean up the air, that means they want less smog and particulate matter in the air. Taking them at their word that they are actually doing it, and that they will actually push these things across the board (i.e. even to Chinese CCP owned or owned and operated by key CCP leaders), that will be the main focus…not CO2, per se. And I don’t uncritically take their word, nor do I believe their data. My ‘conservative’ sources (here I picture you thinking I’m getting this stuff from Fox or something dippy like that :p) have drummed it in that things are much, MUCH more complicated in China, and you never take the CCP or state run media at it’s word. They are a bit like Trump…they lie about everything, and spin everything.
And I’m telling you why, in the context of this thread which ISN’T about what measures the US should be taking but instead about why conservatives strongly oppose the idea of climate change, that not talking about China is one of the problems. And, yeah, you are giving them a pass…you don’t want to discuss China, even though it’s one of the key reasons conservatives feel as they do.
As for your points:
-
No, they aren’t. Their CO2 is continuing upwards while the US has been flat for over a decade. Regardless, conservatives were and are angered that China is being given a pass for the next decade while the US was going to have to buckle down, giving the Chinese and obvious economic advantage over the US and pretty much ever other modern industrialized economy…and it’s a pass they don’t need, being the second largest economy on the planet.
-
So what? China pollutes more than the US and EU combined. And the US and EU combined still have more per capita because we have smaller populations. And it’s irrelevant to the discussion about why conservatives oppose climate change, since it’s pretty obviously someone trying to spin a narrative through numbers…at least, that’s how conservatives see it.
As to the last, you are just wrong. There IS a need for this to be brought up as it’s part of why conservatives are balking at climate change. What the US should do about it is important to perhaps many on this board (including me btw, even though I use ‘conservative sources’ for all my data :p), but to conservatives the fact that China was given a pass is a huge issue, especially when they can see for themselves with a few seconds of Googling that China is a major CO2 producer…AND they are the worlds second largest economy, supposedly overtaking the US soon. If you are going to ask conservatives to make a sacrifice (which is exactly what we need to be doing, though broader to all Americans), then the fact that our number one economic competitor gets a free pass for 10 years while we have to buckle down is not going to fly very well except to those who can look further and deeper at the issue. Just to put this into context with an analogy, this is why Trump’s trade polices resonate with so many people. It seems intuitive…other countries are stealing our money with the trade deficit (wrong), and we need to show them who is boss by imposing tariffs (stupid idea), which when we put them in will make those countries come back, hat in hand to renegotiate the various deals with us and make things better (snort), having the effect of bringing those good, high paying low skill jobs back to the good old USA where they belong (don’t hold your breath)! But this narrative resonates with blue collar workers of all stripes and political leanings, and is one of the reasons why Trump got elected, and is still popular among certain people.
One needs to wonder for a moment why is that when China was having apocalyptic smoke days that **deservedly **got criticism it was reported appropriately; but now when there is evidence, also coming from Greenpeace, that the air is becoming cleaner that is not reported much from the sources you rely on. (Incidentally I have seen a lot of complaints on the lack of reporting about the issue coming from mainstream media in the USA, and the issue is not only coming from FOX news. Corporate media also has an interest on not reminding many in the USA that there is a serious issue going on. Powerful sponsors need to be appeased.)
Nah, what I have seen is that many times is that such lack of information like that one comes not only from some conservative sources, but also from social media that also gets its talking points from regular conservative sites and also more unsavory ones.
Again, you missed that Greenpeace, that do dislike polluters regardless from what ideology they come from, are reporting on the improvements too.
I beg to differ.
If we’re talking about why conservatives opposite the idea of climate change, then the most relevant thing is discussing what measures the US should be taking.
Why?
Because the excuses pre-date China being the #1 CO2 emitter. It’s always been about finding a squirrel to point at. And the reason they need to find a squirrel is because many politicians and pundits are paid off by the fossil fuel industry and/or just don’t care to listen.
I’m happy to talk about China. If there’s a thread discussing what more China should be doing then I’ll definitely take part. But no, I’m not going to run off chasing the squirrel in this thread.
It’s a rapidly developing country
The part of Shanghai where I live was a fishing village 30 years ago, and now looks like (a bigger) Manhatten island.
That’s why despite spending much more on renewables than the US their emissions are still increasing. But eventually that trend line is going to come down.
When that happens, I expect that right wing pundits will be at the “It’s too late to do anything now” stage. Because at every point there has to be a reason to do sod all.
Sadly the narrative is popular among much of the US public because they are badly misinformed on this topic.
In a sane world Trump talking about spraying hairspray in his house should have got him laughed off the stage but instead most of his audience know virtually nothing about climate change.
Let me put it more simply in fact:
If this logic of “China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms, so let’s focus on them” worked, then of course all the rest of the world can use the same excuse.
Finland and Canada and Morocco and Italy and Japan can just say “Hey, let’s focus on the US and China; they emit much more than us!” and sit on their hands. Except of course The Rest of the World collectively emits much more than China and the US combined.
We’d be in (even more) deep shit now if everyone had been so irresponsible and unprincipled as the US right wing.
Wait…what? Who said anything about focusing on them?? I’m saying they shouldn’t be given a freaking pass, not that they should be the only country focused on. Basically, if the US is going to be doing it’s part to seriously reduce CO2 emissions then China should be doing every bit as much…right now, today. Not in 10 years. No more, no less. THEN I think that at least one of the common conservative complaints would be put to rest. You’d still have to deal with the others, but not this one.
No, in fact, I didn’t miss the blurb about Greenpeace saying that air quality (which is different than CO2 emissions, though they can be related) is better…in Beijing. I even know a bit more detail than they or perhaps you seem to as to WHY that is the case. I also know that for the previous Olympic games the CCP was able to enforce restrictions (temporarily) to give a good short term boost to the air quality and bring back some nice blue skies. The thing is, neither you nor Greenpeace seem to want to dig into the why it’s happening, instead attributing it to a switch to natural gas, which is only part of the answer.
Just as an aside, I don’t get my ‘conservative’ information from social media sites like Facebook or Twitter either. Nor are they coming from Fox.
To your first point, the problem I have is where the information is coming from and what it’s being filtered through. Also the thumbnail look at things using official data that you and a lot of the things you’ve linked to in this thread take on China. Myself, I look at a variety of sites and have to piece things together, as I’ve found that reading a Guardian article or a blurb from Greenpeace, while neatly packaged for a specific narrative doesn’t really dig into why something is happening, or what the other factors are that aren’t so nice. Part of the reason Beijing is doing better, air quality wise had to do with the CCP evicting a bunch of folks, closing down a bunch of street vendors, shutting off heat in a bunch of (poor peoples) apartments and other draconian measures…and it was specifically because China was getting a bad rap wrt their air quality, so the CCP (rightfully since you and GP bought it) figured that if they do this in the capital that it would be noticed. And no one would dig into the nasty underbelly of why or how it happened to really see, and to ask…is this sustainable? Is it something the rest of the question could reasonably do? Was it a short term solution to fix a perception problem or a long term one that will have a real effect?
Look, I know China is doing a lot of good things. They are building a bunch of nuclear power plants (though I shudder to think of the quality control issues), and have put in a truly massive amount of hydro-electric (at great cost to both the environment and millions of displaced Chinese), and that these things have had a definite impact on their CO2 emissions going forward. They are building a lot of solar (though not that much more than the US) and wind (same), and they are pushing their stolen electric car tech to push out a lot of electric cars going forward (though this has environmental issues as well). But at the same time it’s putting more ICE cars on the road and building new coal fired power plants…China is the number one user of coal in the world, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon, despite more solar, wind, nuclear and hydro, as well as more use of natural gas which they have only recently started to really exploit. If China was being put under the same kind of scrutiny as the US, if China was expected to live up to the same commitment to treaties as the US, if a lot of the news we get wasn’t whitewashed coming out of China, I’d be fine with that. China SHOULD be treated as an adult. They SHOULD have to comply exactly the same as everyone else does wrt Paris and going forward. They should not get an economic advantage out of this…gods know, they get enough of those on their own by breaking WTO treaties and intellectual property rights and patents. As well as forcing companies wanting to do business in their country to do stuff that wouldn’t be tolerated in other countries in the west. But at a minimum if the US is going to sign up for something that is going to cause short term economic harm, the Chinese should have to as well.
No-one has said give China a pass. In fact, it’s getting tiresome having to repeat that we don’t want to give China a pass, over and over.
Now back to American conservatives: do they think climate change is a serious problem and that the US has a moral obligation to do all it can to reduce emissions?
OK, so what is your response to the point I just put to you?
If the US can just point to China as the biggest emitter, and sidetrack every discussion on climate change, then so can every country. And probably forever. China’s emissions are never going to be lower than Spain’s, so Spain can use that as an excuse to essentially do nothing (except JAQ) indefinitely.
You keep repeating it, yet you guys keep doing it. It’s in just about everything you do. And yeah, it’s getting tiresome for me too because it’s clear you don’t get it. So, moving on…
Yeah, I think that other countries should hold the US’s feet to the fire as well. After all, we are reaping an economic advantage by not doing some of the things we should be (though as I said, our own numbers have been pretty flat…contrary to what China’s have been). I doubt everyone in Spain et al are really happy that the US bagged out of the agreement (as I’ve said, I’m not too happy about it either) and probably feel similar resentment to US conservatives who have it stick in their craw. In this case, however, the US wasn’t given a…well, let’s leave ‘pass’ out of it and instead say grace period…as China was. So it’s a bit different from US conservatives perspective and doesn’t really address why THEY oppose the idea of climate change based on this one aspect. See, the conservatives who think this is an indication that this is all part of the left wing conspiracy to make China ascendant (used to be Russia, but after Trump now the left seems to really dislike them) by giving them a grace period with no enforcement mechanism so that they could just not meet their targets once they have to start, while hampering the US and giving the Chinese an economic advantage over us. Many conservatives don’t see the issue (they have blinded themselves to the growing mountain of data), and still see this in terms of the left trying to harm the US. And looked at this way, giving China a grace period while expecting most other nations to toe the line, and the fact that even those who drafted the Paris accords said this was only a first step, it explains a lot of the resistance and push-back we are getting from conservatives on doing anything substantive wrt cutting our GhG (more than we already are…ironic that an earlier poster pointed out that a lot of the decline in our numbers is from natural gas, while later posters point out that this is a factor in why China has been able to do it :p).
In this case one should wonder if evidence is countering the narrative** of some conservatives**, and in this case it is.
As Greenpeace notices, wind and other natural factors are helping, but helping at about 20% of the result observed.
And already pointed out, that corporate media is not very good at informing the American public about the issue.
At the Olympics in 2012 there were also reports of athletes training with masks, contrast that with what the American embassy is reporting nowadays and what Chinese people are posting in social media. The point is that there are efforts that the Chinese are doing that show that this is not only an effort to prevent bigger climate change, but as I pointed early, a very selfish act from the part of the CCP that has an interest in keeping the status quo.
Uh, how soon is 2023? And I have to say that I was wrong about allowing construction of coal plants to keep people busy, Many are being cancelled (and that was not reported much I must notice). I failed to take into account that solar and wind jobs are also increasing in China.
This is peculiar to say when it is the USA the one stepping out of the commitments as we speak. We should demand adult behavior (or even selfish behavior by looking at energy independence and better lung health because of what the evidence tell us) from the current Republican leadership.
Well, I’m looking at the US embassy monitoring that the BBC is supposedly using, and reading an article saying that while over the winter it was down somewhat it’s been worse than normal since April. Today, the PM2.5 is currently at 59 which is good…for Beijing. According to this https://blissair.com/what-is-pm-2-5.htm, it’s ‘unhealthy’. The range for the last week was between 25 and 95, which ranges from moderate to unhealthy.
Instead of linking me to a BBC fluff piece you could link me to something (not from Chinese state media) showing the data over time. One issue would be that the Chinese have adulterated some of their air quality devices so they don’t function very well. The real data point would be, how many people die each year in China from poor air quality. It had reached over a million in 2016. Has that substantially changed? Even this stat is subject to skepticism, however, since it’s really impossible to trust the data. I do trust the US embassy data, but it’s only one (unofficial) data point, and it’s hard to just how representative it is even in the context of just Beijing. And, of course, this is only tangentially connected to CO2 emissions, though there is correlation there. However, China could put in air scrubbers on their coal plants and there would be less air pollution but not a substantial reduction in CO2.