Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Insulate Britain Protests (Blackwall Tunnel p22)
Comments
-
China ought to do much more to cut emissions, much more.
Especially stuff like this:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180822-why-china-is-transforming-the-worlds-solar-energy
0 -
cantersaddick said:
Some studies have argued that its already happening. That climate change is killing subsitence farmers in Africa in huge numbers and affecting Asia too. Its pretty hard to directly attribute those to climate change but its not long before that will clearly be the case.clb74 said:cantersaddick said:
I know you're joking but do just want to address the point on time lines. People often assume the impacts of this are multiple generations away. They're wrong. The impacts of this will be felt around the world within a decade. Estimates are that people will be dying in their millions as a direct result of climate change within 10 years. The ensuing mass migration on a scale the world has never seen before will likely threaten our way of life.soapy_jones said:I say fuck it! Use it or lose it... I will be long gone by the time this climate shit affects my nearest and dearest!
The way that little shit of a grandaughter spoke to me this morning, bollocks to her and enjoy grubbing around in a post endemic desolute apocoalyptic wasteland of despair and anarchy!
Don't be complacent about this.
10 years Canters?
Are we not then already to save them millions in the next 10 years?
Have to hope it's not too late. Otherwise it would all be far too depressing
Oh well, as long as it is only Africans. My gran can't get her favourite brand of toilet paper in her SPAR and I had to cancel a game of golf.0 -
I have been talking about how interconnected the world is in these matters. If nobody ever sourced anything from China then I imagine their emissions would reduce considerably. It is absolutely true to say that China has used cheap labour, more's the pity about that for the workers in China, but the rest of the world take advantage by buying the cheaper products. A bit like trainers from the far east, or T-Shirts from Bangladesh. If there is fault, which I think there is, then it is everybody's fault.Off_it said:
Absolutely.seth plum said:
Maybe China is pumping out the shit that New Zealand would pump out if they didn't get China to do it for them.Off_it said:
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.seth plum said:Numbers are used in funny ways aren't they?
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution.
If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
But you were the one talking about pollution per capita and I was just pointing out why that metric was flawed by using the example of a population increase in the country with the highest emissions as an example of why it was flawed.
As for the "we get China to do it for us" argument, is that for real? You're blaming "us" - whoever that is supposed to refer to - for the fact that the Chinese used cheap labour to undercut established manufacturing industries around the globe for their own benefit? That's "OUR" fault?1 -
Seth makes a very good point as always and I for one would like to thank China for all their emissions on behalf of others, such generosity.3
-
And how many closures?MrWalker said:
By just announcing the building of 43 new coal fired power stations.Stu_of_Kunming said:
There’s currently regular power outages across the entire country as China tries to reduce its use of coal.Addickted said:
4,000 tons imported from China in 2018 and 7,000 tons imported in 2019.Leuth said:Yeah. "But Chiiinaaaa" is weaksauce and I see it every time the need for reduced emissions is raised now.North China's Inner Mongolia region has told more than 70 mines to boost annual output capacity by nearly 100 million tonnes, according to the Reuters news agency, citing a government official and coal traders.
The area is the country's second-largest producer of coal.
So China's annual output of coal mining is 3.3 billion tons, whilst we ban the use of domestic coal in May 2023.The proposed increase in output of 100 million tonnes would amount to almost 3% of China's total annual thermal coal consumption.
You're a funny guy @Leuth0 -
It’s “everyone’s” fault, if manufacturing was moved elsewhere, emissions would stay the same, just spread out more, the reality is to solve the problem we need to consume and use less. That’s the only real solution.Off_it said:
Absolutely.seth plum said:
Maybe China is pumping out the shit that New Zealand would pump out if they didn't get China to do it for them.Off_it said:
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.seth plum said:Numbers are used in funny ways aren't they?
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution.
If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
But you were the one talking about pollution per capita and I was just pointing out why that metric was flawed by using the example of a population increase in the country with the highest emissions as an example of why it was flawed.
As for the "we get China to do it for us" argument, is that for real? You're blaming "us" - whoever that is supposed to refer to - for the fact that the Chinese used cheap labour to undercut established manufacturing industries around the globe for their own benefit? That's "OUR" fault?1 -
Or find other ways of doing things, like electric carsStu_of_Kunming said:
It’s “everyone’s” fault, if manufacturing was moved elsewhere, emissions would stay the same, just spread out more, the reality is to solve the problem we need to consume and use less. That’s the only real solution.Off_it said:
Absolutely.seth plum said:
Maybe China is pumping out the shit that New Zealand would pump out if they didn't get China to do it for them.Off_it said:
Yes, people do indeed use numbers in funny ways.seth plum said:Numbers are used in funny ways aren't they?
For a start people often say that the UK is the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, and that's to sound big and impressive, yet the UK accounts for about 3.5% of world trade which shows things in a different light.
China dwarfs the UK in global emissions, but per capita China stands at 7.38, but the UK at 5.55.
Narrows things a bit.
Here is a chart that shows China's emissions rate per capita is way below many other countries:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Yet when people search for somewhere to put the boot in, the USA, Canada, Australia are seldom mentioned. But the chart seems to show that per capita pollution stats (if I am reading it right) are nearly the same for China and New Zealand.
China is always cited as the big baddie in these conversations, I wonder why.
Like comparing the pollution levels per capita between a country with a population of 5 million against that of one with 1.4 billion!
Why on earth someone would do that is anyone's guess.
The problem is how much shit is getting pumped out into the atmosphere, not the amount per person. If China's population increased instantly by another billion they aren't suddenly somehow "greener", if they're still pumping the same levels of shit out.
Some of the per capita figures are significant because as I quoted earlier, maybe the places that get stuff from China are per person outsourcing their own pollution.
If a New Zealander has for example a TV, Computer, phone and sundry other goods manufactured in China, but a Chinese factory worker has a bed and a roof and not much else then the per capita angle becomes a bit more significant.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say if the world's population increased instantly by another billion then we aren't suddenly somehow greener.
But you were the one talking about pollution per capita and I was just pointing out why that metric was flawed by using the example of a population increase in the country with the highest emissions as an example of why it was flawed.
As for the "we get China to do it for us" argument, is that for real? You're blaming "us" - whoever that is supposed to refer to - for the fact that the Chinese used cheap labour to undercut established manufacturing industries around the globe for their own benefit? That's "OUR" fault?0 -
Given that Insulate Britain have suspended protests for a week and a half, and the conversation is now just about general CO2 emissions stuff, it's time for us to close the thread and point those who wish to continue the discussion over to the HoC. This post is probably a good jumping off point for you:
https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/4448658/#Comment_4448658If the protests do restart again, then we can start a new thread on the main forum to give people a heads up as to where they are happening.5
This discussion has been closed.
