Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[phyllo]

Nothing could be more simple to understand: the bulk of the problem is not in the US. It's not anywhere in the Western world. It's outside of all that.

In 2023, the top 3 greenhouse gas emitters were China 30.1%, USA 11.2% and India 7.8%.

Second place and 11% is a sizable chunk.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing could be more simple to understand: the bulk of the problem is not in the US. It's not anywhere in the Western world. It's outside of all that.

In 2023, the top 3 greenhouse gas emitters were China 30.1%, USA 11.2% and India 7.8%.

Second place and 11% is a sizable chunk.

Not enough. China and India total 38.9%, all by themselves. Now add in Africa and South America, which are also developing industrial continents. But also, this is just "greenhouse gasses." It's not even counting the other forms of pollution and environmental destruction entailed in industrialization. And it's not telling us where these nations are going to be, in terms of their production; only where they are so far.

After all that, the US's 11% starts to look very small indeed.

[phyllo]

And it's not telling us where these nations are going to be, in terms of their production; only where they are so far.

They're going to be reducing emissions if we have a coordinated management plan instead of denialism and avoidance.

And everybody is on this planet together so everybody has to pitch in.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's not telling us where these nations are going to be, in terms of their production; only where they are so far.

They're going to be reducing emissions if we have a coordinated management plan instead of denialism and avoidance.

What's your "coordinated plan" for the Developing World? How are you going to incentivize them to "pitch in," instead of, say, surviving or feeding their kids?

You can see why development and the environment have to go hand-in-hand. The Developed World cannot just kill the people in the Developing World through starvation, poverty and ill health, and then call it "saving the environment."

And these countries also need political reform: because most of these parts of the world are essentially dictatorships, and many of them Socialist ones, too. And that's part of the reason they pollute so horribly, and cannot modernize efficiently.

Compassion has to be much deeper and more humane than mere Western superfiicial "environmental" enthusiasms of the sort our press trumpets. Real solutions, solutions that actually save the environment and don't kill people, require helping the Developing World in multiple ways. And solutions are complex.

[Gary Childress]

And it's not telling us where these nations are going to be, in terms of their production; only where they are so far.

They're going to be reducing emissions if we have a coordinated management plan instead of denialism and avoidance.

What's your "coordinated plan" for the Developing World? How are you going to incentivize them to "pitch in," instead of, say, surviving or feeding their kids?

You can see why development and the environment have to go hand-in-hand. The Developed World cannot just kill the people in the Developing World through starvation, poverty and ill health, and then call it "saving the environment."

And these countries also need political reform: because most of these parts of the world are essentially dictatorships, and many of them Socialist ones, too. And that's part of the reason they pollute so horribly, and cannot modernize efficiently.

Compassion has to be much deeper and more humane than mere Western superfiicial "environmental" enthusiasms of the sort our press trumpets. Real solutions, solutions that actually save the environment and don't kill people, require helping the Developing World in multiple ways. And solutions are complex.

How is ignoring the 11% contributed by the US (the second largest amount) helping the developing world? How is that saving lives in the developing world? How is that not just a bunch of words thrown out that are meaningless and pointless tokenism?

[Immanuel Can]

They're going to be reducing emissions if we have a coordinated management plan instead of denialism and avoidance.

What's your "coordinated plan" for the Developing World? How are you going to incentivize them to "pitch in," instead of, say, surviving or feeding their kids?

You can see why development and the environment have to go hand-in-hand. The Developed World cannot just kill the people in the Developing World through starvation, poverty and ill health, and then call it "saving the environment."

And these countries also need political reform: because most of these parts of the world are essentially dictatorships, and many of them Socialist ones, too. And that's part of the reason they pollute so horribly, and cannot modernize efficiently.

Compassion has to be much deeper and more humane than mere Western superfiicial "environmental" enthusiasms of the sort our press trumpets. Real solutions, solutions that actually save the environment and don't kill people, require helping the Developing World in multiple ways. And solutions are complex.

How is ignoring the 11% contributed by the US (the second largest amount) helping the developing world?

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

[phyllo]

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

Nobody is ignoring "the rest of the world".

There are global initiatives trying to deal with the problems.

[MikeNovack]

How is ignoring the 11% contributed by the US (the second largest amount) helping the developing world? [/quote]
Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?
[/quote]

Even better question --- The US population is about 3.5% of the world human population. But it is contributing 11% of the damage. What should be done about the fact that we are THREE TIMES as destructive than the average?

[Immanuel Can]

How is ignoring the 11% contributed by the US (the second largest amount) helping the developing world?

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

Even better question --- The US population is about 3.5% of the world human population. But it is contributing 11% of the damage. What should be done about the fact that we are THREE TIMES as destructive than the average?

How about an even better one?

Given that the US is only 11%, but is already fully modernized, that 11% is destined to shrink. As the undeveloped nations like China and India modernize, they'll only increase their energy demands, pollution and carbon exponentially (as you point out modernizing has done), whereas the US is likely to remain relatively stable, by comparison, and effectively become a lower and lower percentage of the total.

So given that the rest of the world is headed toward producing 90%+ of the environmental damage of the future, how important is it to get ahold of that situation?

The question answers itself...for anybody sincerely interested in environmental issues.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

Nobody is ignoring "the rest of the world".

There are global initiatives trying to deal with the problems.

Name them.

[seeds]

How is ignoring the 11% contributed by the US (the second largest amount) helping the developing world?

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

Even better question --- The US population is about 3.5% of the world human population. But it is contributing 11% of the damage. What should be done about the fact that we are THREE TIMES as destructive than the average?

I took this up with Google's AI Assistant...

Me:
Someone in a debate on a philosophy forum used the following statistics to defend America's attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

"In 2023, the top 3 greenhouse gas emitters were China 30.1%, USA 11.2% and India 7.8%."

However, does that take into account the emissions caused by America's outsourcing a lot of its manufacturing?

AI Assistant:
The short answer is no. The percentages you mentioned (China 30.1%, USA 11.2%) are based on territorial emissions, which measure only the greenhouse gases physically released within a country's borders.

When you account for the emissions generated by outsourced manufacturing—known as consumption-based emissions—the picture shifts significantly:

1. The "Emissions Transfer"

The U.S. is the world’s largest net importer of "embodied carbon." When an American company moves a factory to China to produce goods for the American market, the emissions from that factory are added to China’s tally, even though the U.S. drives the demand.

_______

[Immanuel Can]

I took this up with Google's AI Assistant...

Oh, if only you would think, instead of just asking the wrong question to an algorithm. How much better the answers you get might be!

If, as you say, American impact on the environment is bad now, just imagine how bad it will be when China and India start living at the same level as Americans presently do! And they will, if they can. Why should they decide they can't modernize, when we did? Why shouldn't they expect to live at the level you live at right now, if you are enjoying those benefits? Why would they not try to get the same for their children as you expect for yours?

And when they do, what happens then?

Think, think, think...

[Gary Childress]

I took this up with Google's AI Assistant...

Oh, if only you would think, instead of just asking the wrong question to an algorithm. How much better the answers you get might be!

If, as you say, American impact on the environment is bad now, just imagine how bad it will be when China and India start living at the same level as Americans presently do! And they will, if they can. Why should they decide they can't modernize, when we did? Why shouldn't they expect to live at the level you live at right now, if you are enjoying those benefits? Why would they not try to get the same for their children as you expect for yours?

And when they do, what happens then?

Think, think, think...

If we don't do something about our own emissions, then why should China and India do something about theirs? However, if we do something about our own emissions, then we have a bargaining chip to coax China and India into doing something about theirs. I don't see why we should ignore our 11% and not try to do something about it, as well as try to cooperate with China and India to get their emissions lower. We can lead by example or we can be stubborn and insist that China and India lower their emissions before we lower ours.

As far as I'm aware, China and India are aware of the need to reduce global emissions, and China has taken steps in that direction. India, I don't know about. However, Trump standing up at the UN and telling the world that they are fools if they reduce their emissions (and he did just that) was idiotic and is only going to make things more difficult.

[Immanuel Can]

I took this up with Google's AI Assistant...

Oh, if only you would think, instead of just asking the wrong question to an algorithm. How much better the answers you get might be!

If, as you say, American impact on the environment is bad now, just imagine how bad it will be when China and India start living at the same level as Americans presently do! And they will, if they can. Why should they decide they can't modernize, when we did? Why shouldn't they expect to live at the level you live at right now, if you are enjoying those benefits? Why would they not try to get the same for their children as you expect for yours?

And when they do, what happens then?

Think, think, think...

If we don't do something about our own emissions, then why should China and India do something about theirs?

Is it your supposition that if we do the right thing, say, then a totalitarian Socialist dictatorship like China will just fall into line? What gives you that confidence?

However, if we do something about our own emissions, then we have a bargaining chip to coax China and India into doing something about theirs.

How? What is that "bargaining chip"? Let's suppose we do what the greenies want us to do...all of it...we go vegan, we recycle, we set up wind farms, we stop driving and flying, we stop using computers, we stop using heavy metals, and so on...and our Western economies are forced to shrink, as they inevitably would. What would be this wonderful motive China would suddenly discover that they should do the same to their own country?

I don't see why we should ignore our 11%

Nobody's saying we should. I certainly didn't.

But if we ignore the 90+ that will be done by the Developing World, then what happens to our alleged project of saving the environment? No matter what the US does, none of it will change one thing unless the Developing World is included.

We can lead by example...

Well, morally, we should; but that's your "bargaining chip"? It's not much of a "chip," I have to say.

How effective is the "American example" in the world right now? Be honest with yourself, now: nobody cares what the Americans do, so long as it doesn't offer them any immediate gains or else affect them in some negative way. That's the truth. In fact, most other nations are currently very negative on America itself -- partly with reasons, and partly out of petty jealousy -- and a great many would rather see its fortunes sunk, just so they can gloat. And Trump or Biden-Harris, the world feels exactly the same way about that.

And you think China and India are different? Well, I've got to see your evidence for that sunny prognostication!

[FlashDangerpants]

fully modernized

There's no such thing as fully modernized. The process never ends.