The Environmental Watchdog MasterThread

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

You're dishonest because of your history as a troll going down the standard tree of conservative talking points, misframing of your opposition, attempts to lay a groundwork of falsehoods to drive the conversation, etc etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

"Hey Mom, I didn't like something Anteater said on a thread back in uh...2018!"

"What thread was it?"

"Uh...I dunno, but I didn't like it!!"

"So what are you going to do?"

"I'm going to go to MusicBanter and say it was all just conservative talking points! Nobody ever reads these discussions anyway, and I'm always right!"

"That's nice dear. Now eat your carrots."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's the functional outcome of what you're calling for. Tell him, jwb.

Hey now, leave him out of this. He has a cocaine empire to build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

This is a global issue so no, I wouldn't. It's probably better if you base this conversation on things I have said instead of imagined arguments you've dishonestly constructed for me in order to frame a cheap gotcha argument.

I read what you said, and there's nothing to imagine here. I went back into those articles and found that your particular assertions about America and China's production relationship doesn't seem to account for most of the cited emission numbers. Rather, their coal production for domestic products and cement production are the largest contributing factors. There's no "gotcha" here - I just found your generalizations to be inaccurate.

See though, I don't think you and I really disagree on these issues. You just don't have a strong grasp on my actual positions on most topics, so you tend to approach arguments with me ineffectually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'm well aware of the media campaign intended to manufacture western consent of war with china and never even rejected their level of emissions. I'm mainly pointing out that it's entwined with american consumption, so america effectively (as opposed to performatively as we've been seeing) going net or even negative emissions would include their relationship with china.

You introduced the nation-based goalpost btw.

I never introduced this as some goalpost-oriented topic. I made a point that if you want to deal with emissions, you need to change China because by extension it would be more effective in a macro-sense since every other country (U.S., the EU, Russia, etc.) buy from them. The U.S. has been lowering carbon emission rates consistently for years now and under Biden will likely accelerate that trend - the CCP is a different story, hence the data and why pushing for change over there might be beneficial in regards to solving the climate change problem at a larger level.

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

I read what you said, and there's nothing to imagine here.

You literally imagined what I "would" say.

Quote:

I went back into those articles and found that your viewpoint America and China's production relationship doesn't seem to account for most of the cited emission numbers. Rather, their coal production for domestic products and cement production are the largest contributing factors. There's no "gotcha" here - I just found your generalizations to be inaccurate.

My generalizations about tackling the financial incentives surrounding environmental destruction address something broader than your nation-obsessed goalpost.

Quote:

I never introduced nations as a goalposts. I made a point that if you want to deal with emissions, you need to change China because by extension it would be more effective in a macro-sense since every other country (U.S., the EU, Russia, etc.) buy from them. The U.S. has been lowering carbon emission rates consistently for years now and under Biden will likely accelerate that trend - the CCP is a different story, hence the data.

That would introducing a goalpost attempting to reduce the conversation to which nation is the most to blame.

The u.s. has not functionally lowered its emissions because it outsources a good deal of industry to other countries that pick up the tab and some of the local reductions are not enough under the half-measures being implemented. Another confounding factor is that international shipping is also difficult to pin on one country and accounts for a great deal of global emissions. Then the countries where the emissions are offset to receive the blame for them, justifying the imperialist interference underpinning your calls to do "something" about those crazy chinamen in the public consciousness. This is why reducing the conversation to which nation is most to blame distorts the issue at hand. That's the function of these talking points that you apparently think nobody here has seen before.

Quote:

See though, I don't think you and I really disagree on these issues. You just don't have a strong grasp on my actual positions on most topics, so you tend to approach arguments with me ineffectually.

That sounds like you being unable to comprehend where I'm disagreeing with your statements more than anything.

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 12:25 PM

I don't think any kind of "imperialist interference" would solve these problems though. Only technological shifts I've previously discussed will solve the underlying issues.

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

I don't think any kind of "imperialist interference" would solve these problems though.

Implication exists, you know.

Quote:

Only technological shifts I've previously discussed will solve the underlying issues.

Those shifts would be implemented by the same people wreaking environmental havok so I'm not so optimistic.

~~jwb~~ · 08-09-2021, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

the point would be to show that they mean business

you're more or less saying, stop polluting, or get whacked

(disclaimer for the FBI)elph does not support nor is he affiliated with any such activities

I understand the motive but like I've said I'm skeptical as to how well that would actually work.

Seems more likely to just create unnecessary death and destruction while not helping the environment one bit imo

If the hypothetical is purely that the terrorism is highly effective as attaining its goal without significant collateral damage then maybe... But that sounds more like a movie than reality to me

~~jwb~~ · 08-09-2021, 01:26 PM

Re: china and India... They are industrializing the same way the west already did so it's a bit rich to say now that we've already fouled up the earth with our development that they are just supposed to languish in third world poverty for the sake of the planet imo

Whatever strides we do make in cutting emissions have been rather miniscule and based more on regulation and emissions standards. Which is like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Until the underlying energy infrastructure is completely overhauled and green technology made capable of out competing fossil fuels, we are ****ed. If said green technology was made cost effective and efficient enough countries like China and India would adopt them voluntarily out of self interest... I'm quite sure they don't actually want to live in smog ridden cities with toxic air. Of course that's easier said than done.

The Batlord · 08-09-2021, 04:25 PM

Alright so we're going after China? Cool. What's the first step? Well as Americans I guess we have to get American politicians to really take climate change seriously, get a handle on all the misinformation, and remove fossil fuel industry money from the government. Only then can we...

Oh wow it's almost like bringing up China is a red herring to distract us from doing exactly what we needed to do anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Re: china and India... They are industrializing the same way the west already did so it's a bit rich to say now that we've already fouled up the earth with our development that they are just supposed to languish in third world poverty for the sake of the planet imo

Church. If China and India shook hands to nuke England they'd be kinda justified.

~~jwb~~ · 08-09-2021, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

it doesn't matter if it can compete with fossil fuels

it must be made, by government intervention, the only source of energy

if this means accepting a lower quality of life, then tough, the party couldn't last forever

It seems like that would be much harder to pitch in this country let alone to enforce internationally... I have little faith in prohibition tbh

I think investing massive amounts of money into r&d to try to bring green energy and carbon trapping technology up to speed seems more plausible

Lisnaholic · 08-09-2021, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

All the more reason for China to get off of coal at this point. There's no way that's the most cost effective option they have.

Well, at least there is some point of agreement here, though Frownland wins the larger point, imo, that "obssessing about which country is Most to Blame" is not effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

You are missing the point Lisna. The U.S. does make strides toward reducing emissions. The problem is when others do not do the same despite the fact their cumulative output is over double our own.

Admittedly, I haven't gone beyond the pie chart we mentioned, but if you are refering to China, then I'm finding fault with your arithmatic here. 28% cannot be described as "over double" 15%

Quote:

Frownland and elph are not solutions-oriented people so you can't explain to them that in order to solve a problem you have to really focus at the top.

Both of those statements seem unjustified to me and for similar reasons: grand generalisations without evidence or context.

Quote:

The U.S. (along with a bunch of others) are buyers in regards to China - China is both the primary producer and the seller. China has more leverage than everyone else by the very nature of this relationship. Therefore, if you can get China to evolve their operations, by extension you reduce every other associated issue. Why? Because the likelihood of these buyer-seller relationships changing at any point before we die of old age is zero, whereas it is more feasible to push China to become more innovative both domestically and otherwise in regards to the production of goods and services.

I agree with most of this bit, Anteater, except for the bold. With tariffs, tech innovation, exchange rates, etc, buyer-seller relationships are surely constantly shifting. Ask the manager of any import/export business in the world.
Is this another example of your "15% = zero" thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

but the world economy is based to a degree on China being a kind of dungeon factory

the US loves cheap consumer goods, but would rather have some other country deal with the fall-out, in this way there is an illusion that Capitalism "works"

Yes, this is true, as is jwb's post: the most on-point summation so far:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Re: china and India... They are industrializing the same way the west already did so it's a bit rich to say now that we've already fouled up the earth with our development that they are just supposed to languish in third world poverty for the sake of the planet imo

Whatever strides we do make in cutting emissions have been rather miniscule and based more on regulation and emissions standards. Which is like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Until the underlying energy infrastructure is completely overhauled and green technology made capable of out competing fossil fuels, we are ****ed. If said green technology was made cost effective and efficient enough countries like China and India would adopt them voluntarily out of self interest... I'm quite sure they don't actually want to live in smog ridden cities with toxic air. Of course that's easier said than done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Church. If China and India shook hands to nuke England they'd be kinda justified.

Justified or not, I would be reluctant to support this approach for personal reasons.
I think the lopsided truth is that yes, we messed up the environment, but out of ignorance of the consequences. We also had a cleaner planet to poo on.
You, (China and India) don't have the excuse of ignorance and environmental circs have changed radically for the worse. Sorry guys, what was ok then is not ok today.
A somehow connected note of optimism is the story of the telephone service in Africa. It used to be terrible, and very limited. The solution of putting up telephone lines across the continent was unattainable, but then with satellite technology, Africa leapfrogged that problem completely.
That's what we want from India, China and Brasil: do something smarter, not based on the circs of 100 years ago.

The Batlord · 08-09-2021, 06:57 PM

And Anteater calling himself "solution-oriented" is ludicrous when his solution is to "make China do X". How you gonna make China do anything, Ant, when half the political class in your country is actively obstructing climate change solutions and the other half is just kicking the can down the road? Are you personally going to make China do anything? Seems to me if you want to make China do anything you first have to change your own country's stance on climate change. Unless you support grass roots eco terrorism in China?

08-09-2021, 01:26 PM	#836 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	Re: china and India... They are industrializing the same way the west already did so it's a bit rich to say now that we've already fouled up the earth with our development that they are just supposed to languish in third world poverty for the sake of the planet imo Whatever strides we do make in cutting emissions have been rather miniscule and based more on regulation and emissions standards. Which is like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Until the underlying energy infrastructure is completely overhauled and green technology made capable of out competing fossil fuels, we are ***ed. If said green technology was made cost effective and efficient enough countries like China and India would adopt them voluntarily out of self interest... I'm quite sure they don't actually want* to live in smog ridden cities with toxic air. Of course that's easier said than done. Last edited by jwb; 08-09-2021 at 01:32 PM.