World Agrees on $300B Climate Aid Financial Deal - After COP29 Summit 'Nearly Implodes' (cnn.com) 120
"At points there was fear the talks would implode, as groups representing vulnerable small island states and the least-developed countries walked out of negotiations Saturday," according to a new report from CNN.
But after weeks of international climate talks at COP29, "the world agreed to a new climate deal... "with wealthy countries pledging to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to poorer countries to help them cope with the increasingly catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis." The amount pledged, however, falls far short of the $1.3 trillion economists say is needed to help developing countries cope with a climate crisis they have done least to cause — and there has been a furious reaction from many developing countries. a fiery speech immediately after the gavel went down, India's representative Chandni Raina slammed the $300 billion as "abysmally poor" and a "paltry sum," calling the agreement "nothing more than an optical illusion" and unable to "address the enormity of the challenge we all face."
Others were equally damning in their criticism. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need," said Tina Stege, Marshall Islands climate envoy. Stege heavily criticized the talks as showing the "very worst of political opportunism." Fossil fuel interests "have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we've worked to build," she said in a statement...
There was also a push for richer emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia to contribute to the climate funding package, but the agreement only "encourages" developing countries to make voluntary contributions, and places no obligations on them... Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, which has pushed against ambitious action at past climate summits, seemed even more emboldened in Baku, publicly and explicitly rejecting any reference to oil, coal and gas in the deal.
The package "is also being criticised as short-sighted from the richer world's perspective," notes the BBC: The argument runs that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures, then wealthier nations need to help emerging economies cut their emissions, because that is where 75% of the growth in emissions has occurred in the past decade.
But "Delegations more optimistic about the agreement said this deal is headed in the right direction," writes the Associated Press, "with hopes that more money flows in the future." The text included a call for all parties to work together using "all public and private sources" to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
But after weeks of international climate talks at COP29, "the world agreed to a new climate deal... "with wealthy countries pledging to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to poorer countries to help them cope with the increasingly catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis." The amount pledged, however, falls far short of the $1.3 trillion economists say is needed to help developing countries cope with a climate crisis they have done least to cause — and there has been a furious reaction from many developing countries. a fiery speech immediately after the gavel went down, India's representative Chandni Raina slammed the $300 billion as "abysmally poor" and a "paltry sum," calling the agreement "nothing more than an optical illusion" and unable to "address the enormity of the challenge we all face."
Others were equally damning in their criticism. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need," said Tina Stege, Marshall Islands climate envoy. Stege heavily criticized the talks as showing the "very worst of political opportunism." Fossil fuel interests "have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we've worked to build," she said in a statement...
There was also a push for richer emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia to contribute to the climate funding package, but the agreement only "encourages" developing countries to make voluntary contributions, and places no obligations on them... Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, which has pushed against ambitious action at past climate summits, seemed even more emboldened in Baku, publicly and explicitly rejecting any reference to oil, coal and gas in the deal.
The package "is also being criticised as short-sighted from the richer world's perspective," notes the BBC: The argument runs that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures, then wealthier nations need to help emerging economies cut their emissions, because that is where 75% of the growth in emissions has occurred in the past decade.
But "Delegations more optimistic about the agreement said this deal is headed in the right direction," writes the Associated Press, "with hopes that more money flows in the future." The text included a call for all parties to work together using "all public and private sources" to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
By 2035 they say? (Score:2, Redundant)
How much will the US pay by January 20th and how will the deal handle their withdrawal?
300 Billion Scam (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can only hope that DOGE will stop this waste of money.
Hahaha, good one. We all know Leon was never going to stop waste of money, only redirect it to himself. Republicans always claim they're going to reduce spending and then always increase it while also cutting taxes so that they increase the deficit. The prior Trump administration was no different, and this one will not be different in that regard either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather like how the Democrats always claim they're going to help the working man, yet sign trade deals to kill their industries.
You mean like NAFTA, right? Which Trump replaced with the virtually identical USMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking idiot for calling HRC my darling.
Never go full fucking idiot.
Never enough (Score:3, Insightful)
"You have money. Give us money."
"Here is money."
"Not enough. Give us more money."
"Here is more money."
"Still not enough."
GOTO start
Stupid victims! /s (Score:4, Insightful)
"You have money. Give us money."
You have it entire backwards. It's "You broke your word. Pay us our restitution."
Why do act like the victim when you are the perpetrator?
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at it from the other side:
"I'm not cleaning up my mess! You do it!"
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Poor people: You destroyed the world, you need to pay to help fix it. It's going to cost millions to fix.
Ignorant American: Here's a $20
poor people: Did you not understand? millions
Ignorant Americans: so a $50?
Re: Never enough (Score:2)
Re: Never enough (Score:1)
I am more intrigued by what leverage do the small island nations have to get any money at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate disasters are like enemy attack (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Climate disasters are like enemy attack (Score:4, Informative)
So divert some of the firehose of money going to defense spending to climate spending, here is how: https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
Thank you. The $300BN quoted in this article is in the same ballpark as the AUKUS deal, wherein Australia gives a pile of money to America and England to, maybe one day, be allowed to ride in some nuclear submarines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, little old Australia could basically pay for this whole global climate fund all by themselves if they weren't instead hell-bent on trying to buy friendship with America and England. (and simultaneously piss off their biggest trade customer)
Re: (Score:2)
An enemy that has existed since the earth was formed, that has no government, that follows the same cycles, cycles that dwarf the pathetically short time humans have even been aware of how rain works.
It always makes me giggle as I see people repeating the same mistakes. King Cnut stood in the sea to show that even he was not capable for turning back the tide, but people still think they can :D
Spend what you like on fighting the so called enemy of "climate change". We already know the outcome...
Paris all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)
This means nothing. For it to matter, it would need:
- To be much larger
- Timed for immediacy, not a decade
- Used for the intended purpose, efficiently and without corruption and redirection
It's meaningless. More lip service, and not even good lip service. And this business about 75% of the growth in emissions being from emerging economies is a red herring. The growth doesn't matter. The total does. And that's a handful of countries.
If two guys are kicking you to death, and a third one looks like they're about to join in, paying the newcomer to go away doesn't solve your problem.
Re:Paris all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's another case of The West, the developed nations, missing the boat and handing a huge opportunity to China.
China is manufacturing and installing renewables on a vast scale, unimaginable to us. Last year, in the first 8 months, they installed more solar than the US has in its entire history. More wind than the rest of the world has combined.
They are doing what we should be doing - racing ahead to green their energy supply, and proving that massive amounts of renewable energy won't cause the grid to collapse. Ramping up manufacturing to an incredible scale, for the domestic market and crucially for exports. Chinese solar panels and wind turbines are the cheapest way to generate electricity, and their EVs reached price parity with fossil cars already.
People seem to think that the Tesla gigafactory is some kind of achievement of scale, but it's dwarfed by BYD factories. Factories, plural. We just aren't doing enough, despite having huge domestic markets full of relatively affluent consumers. We need to get our act together, for the climate and for our future prosperity.
Re: Paris all over again. (Score:1, Troll)
In short "it's amazing how productive dictatorships can be!"
Thanks, no.
Re: Paris all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your only answer to "we should make things cleaner so we can have a future" is "we can't have that because dictatorship" then no matter what your whole plan is to fail and no one should listen to you, and you've also helped make the argument for dictatorship instead of some other system which might work.
Re: Paris all over again. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's another good reason why would should be doing more. If the rest of the world sees that our relatively liberal democracies are unable to deal with climate change, but China is... Well, it's not a good advert for our freedoms, is it?
From an economic point of view, we just have to deal with the fact that China's model of 5 year plans and long term strategy is proving effective. The government says that EVs are the priority, and it creates the certainty needed to invest massive sums in battery factories and EV R&D. Our governments can't quite stick to a timetable for phasing out fossil cars, and support levels change from year to year as elections take place. We also have a problem with fossil fuel interests spreading FUD, something that the Chinese government simply doesn't allow.
Yeah there is less freedom in China, but freedom isn't a cheat code for your economy to automatically win. Or to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
In free societies...the government is the one beholden and answerable to the citizenry....not the other way around.
In the case here in the US, the general public is NOT ready for EVs only and banish ICE vehicles....we're just not ready for it, not the infrastructure, and the cost of the cars is too high, AND...it doesn't fit with our lifestyles in mass here....not yet.
The govt in free societies is NOT there to force behavior ont
Re: (Score:2)
So in this free society, where you have decided to screw everyone, what am I supposed to do about it?
Is this one of those "personal responsibility" moments?
Re: (Score:2)
Your perception of my actions really doesn't matter at all....whether what I do is legal is the only final basis on which anything is fully judge able.
Now...common courtesy, manners, etc....yes, they should be considered, BUT in the end those are niceties and as such, don't really hold any meaningful ground in human interactions.
So, you have to make new laws if you want something enforceable.....and like
Re: (Score:2)
So we need a law banning stupid cars. Thanks for the advice.
Actually there are other options. Sanctions in countries that don't make enough effort. But it sounds like you guys are about to sanction yourselves. Welcome to the club.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the majority of folks in said country WANT to do that....well, good luck on passing such laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. We've found your actual, honest to goodness, hill to die on. :) While I appreciate your fervour, if I had to make a trade I'd trade dictatorship now for long term sustainability. Political systems are transitory. We may be pressed into making a purely pragmatic choice. I don't know just how bad the alternative would have to be before I chose to chuck humanity's foreseeable future in the dumpster instead.
Re: (Score:2)
People seem to think that the Tesla gigafactory is some kind of achievement of scale, but it's dwarfed by BYD factories.
When you reduce the number of people who have access to capital, this is what occurs. The incumbent doesn't want to take risks.
We just aren't doing enough, despite having huge domestic markets full of relatively affluent consumers.
LOL, only about 10% of America is affluent consumers bro. The rest of the folks are left putzing about finding ways to keep their heads above water with more and more failing each year. Hurray for the 10% I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
When you reduce the number of people who have access to capital, this is what occurs. The incumbent doesn't want to take risks.
I can't tell what you mean by this. Are you saying that Tesla's success has discouraged others from even trying?
Re:Paris all over again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever the reason, it's working. Yes they need to improve their grid, but this is China... They went from zero to more high speed rail and more underground metro rail than the rest of the world combined, in less than two decades. They installed more grid scale battery capacity than the rest of the world combined last year too.
By the way, factories and industrial plants are banned from being within 5km of major rivers now, and monitored for emissions. It's not perfect and arguably some of the dams they are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of argument let's say I agree. So what? Pointing and saying "they are cheating!" isn't going to do much for anyone, least of all us.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... you may be "decades ahead" - a somewhat suspect claim to begin with - but all indications are you're in the process of regressing.
Well, governments are out (Score:2)
Either technology save us or we try to survive what is coming.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not looking good at both fronts. Looks like the best we can still hope for is scattered tribes with minimal technology. Civilization survival is pretty much off the table. And if we continue a few more decades like we currently do, species survival also becomes uncertain. Obviously, a lot of the filthy rich and a lot of useful idiots want exactly that.
These summits are a joke (Score:3)
They accomplish nothing of substance and give the illusion of progress
The rich, whose fortunes depend on oil, will never give up oil
The poor will vote for anybody who promises to lower gas prices
There is no politically viable solution
Re: (Score:2)
There will be solutions. They may just not include humans still being around. What is currently being arranged is an eventual species suicide. All so that some already far too rich assholes can get even richer.
Re: (Score:2)
> They may just not include humans still being around.
That is not a solution duh.
Just turn off all the electricity and be done with it already.
Everything for keeping up the pretense... (Score:3)
... of doing something. $300B just for that, so that some rich assholes can get even richer making the problem worse.
India (Score:3, Insightful)
India's representative Chandni Raina slammed the $300 billion as "abysmally poor"
She should have said $320 billion, to include the amount her country scams out of the "developed" nations.
She should not get on such a high horse until her nation addresses its massive scale of corruption. If it ever does, that in itself would go a long way towards reducing the colossal amount of pollution India produces. As things stand, any money going to reduce pollution in India, whether internally or from outside, will probably go straight into officials' pockets.
For all its vast and ever-increasing population, and the massive pollution it produces by air and by sea, India does not seem to have much to show that is positive. Unlike China, which at least manufactures half the things you can buy these days, even if 90% of it is trash or tat; that reminds me to buy my Xmas decorations.
Epiphany (Score:3)
> as groups representing vulnerable small island states and the least-developed countries walked out of negotiations
Probably as they finally realised the free ride their populations have had was ending. Islands that appeared after most of the water froze on this planet will vanish under the water as it warms up again.
Man made contributions regardless, you can’t stop the climate from changing. Those islands will, no are part of the dynamics of the planets climate and they will, no ARE re-entering the seas. You can either build a wall and try to keep the water at bay, or become a water based society like in Waterworld, only more developed as you won’t need to be cobbling together stuff, or you understand you can’t hold back the tide forever and like all other humans and species part of this world must continue to take part in the migrations that have always been.
The ride is over. Either adapt or move. Even if we never had the industrial revolution this would still be happening, perhaps a bit later, but it will still happen and the undeveloped tribes living on those islands in the fictional non-industrialised world we are thinking of will do what all others do, and move. But because they developed as a result of industrialisation and the other "world changing" advances over the last few hundred years which basically "levelled up" the world, I think that all of us, not just the islanders, are quite unwilling and very incapable of considering what Humans of the past would have done, which is to simply move to a better area.
We all like where we have grown our roots. We are not going to move. Today’s world of politics makes that very difficult. Thus they must adapt, or make a serious effort to move in a world that is more hostile to such things.
You aint stopping this, basically. Adapt, or move. Venice adapted the first time round, so can these islands.
Peanuts (Score:2)
To put the number in context, in 2023, the USA spent $700M on halloween costumes... for pets: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/31... [npr.org]
$300BN for the whole planet seems like a pretty low number.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so we spent less than 1/300th of the climate "investment" enjoying ourselves. Apparently 300Billion with a 'B' isnt enough but its totally rational that flushing another 700M down that toilet would help in some way...
The entire approach to climate change is dead wrong! We should not be focused on carbon, that is grifter bullshit for the most part. Everyone's zero carbon by 20XX claims are basically accounting tricks.
The "green" focus should be on habitat preservation and wilderness restoration. That is h
Re: (Score:2)
There is a correlation between carbon emissions and population/economic output/advancement of civilisation (or however you want to define the antithesis of the "decline" you describe) but it's not a requirement.
CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand. has a very well-defined IR absorption spectrum and absolutely does have a huge effect on climate. I don't think the COP29 delegates are saying that biodiversity _isn't_ important, or that improving CO2 removal by the biosphere isn't useful to address climate
So ... (Score:1)
... it's almost as if this political issue is being used to do what people wanted to do anyway; jet around to conferences, flex their power, and slosh money around.
Beggars can't be choosers (Score:2)
Why is it exactly that "developing countries" and "indigent areas" and whatever India, Pakistan, and Gaza are (and soon Lebanon and Azerbaijan and more) are DESERVANT of all these alms and when they don't "magically get" all the money "they want" they threaten to walk out?
Let them walk out. Refund my taxes. LDCs (formerly third-world-countries) that only exist to collect a hand out are like the entire Trump campaign. Take take take. Then screw over thsoe who gave.
Enough.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Forking over billions to India and China is plain evil
Good thing that's not what's happening then, innit?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately it's throwing our money at 3rd world despots to get their industrial revolutions on, or ramp them up, or maybe to buy weapons in the tr
only to the ignorant (Score:1)
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2)
While China & India may not be getting paid from this (up to) $300BN/year fund, but they are not being forced to contribute to it, merely 'encouraged'.
As a reminder, China is still building coal-fired power plants in 2024...
Re:more taxes make weather better (Score:5, Informative)
Forking over billions to India and China is plain evil.
China is not a recipient of the funding.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
And who is going to believe that?
Re:more taxes make weather better (Score:5, Informative)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
Why are you lying? [ourworldindata.org]
Also why are so many ignorant people modding him up?
Re: (Score:2)
based on the figures linked in the above article- https://www.cnn.com/interactiv... [cnn.com]
Chinas emissions are indeed the highest.
depends on whose data you looks at and also on a per capita basis, or total figures.
From the majority of sources.. on per capita- the US is higher.. total emissions.. China blows everyone out of the water.
Re: (Score:1)
US is way out in front, Europe is second and China is third. Nothing to do with China having way more people. The per capita would be even worse. US has fewer people and China easily has the most.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
Why are you lying? [ourworldindata.org]
Also why are so many ignorant people modding him up?
Where's the meta moderation when you need it, right? /s
Look at the slopes and curvature of your graph and consider that it is nearly 2025, not 2023. If China did not yet surpass the EU, it's only a matter of time (measured in months). Some sources (from Nov, 2024, not an old graph like yours) state it already happened:
1) https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
2) (non-paywalled source) https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
china per capita is still below the US (Score:1)
Re: china per capita is still below the US (Score:1)
The economic plight of the average Chinese citizen is not reflective of the nations economy.
As a reminder, China is a major buyer of US Debt. Think about that, this purportedly "poor" undeveloped nation has the funds to finance the spending of the so-called strongest economy in the world.
Great, when you divide their economy by what, 1.5 billion residents they come up poorer than many world economies, but they are not a poor nation, and they do pollute on a grand scale and will continue to do so well into th
Re: (Score:1)
firstly. You're lying.
secondly China has way more people than the EU, it's pretty silly to expect them to emit less.
I don't think that's an entirely reasonable argument. Why should we do it by pure population? Why should countries that have failed to address the population problem be rewarded?
I do think, though, that China is a bit of an exception because their one child policy made a huge difference. It's a definite fair comment that places like the States, Australia and the Arab nations which have far higher per-person emissions need to do their bit to get renewable energy going.
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2)
I wonder how all the female Chinese babies drowned in rice patties feel about the one-child policy? Anyone ask all the young Chinese men that can't find a female partner how they feel about the one-child policy?
No, I don't think the rest of the developed world needs to seriously consider adopting a similar one-child policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't mistake me for a CCP apologist. I agree with you that the policy has had awful consequences. That doesn't take away in any way from my point that the Chinese people have made sacrifices for the good of China and Humanity. In fact the opposite. They continue to suffer under the Chinese government and deserve better. BTW, the one exception to the one child policy are actually farmers who were allowed more children, so it's less rice paddies and more aborted, abandoned or thrown in garbage. Not al
Re: (Score:2)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
That's not a reasonable metric.
Even if you believe that historical blame is relevant, it should be measured per capita, and by that measure, China is far behind Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
That's not a reasonable metric.
Even if you believe that historical blame is relevant, it should be measured per capita, and by that measure, China is far behind Europe.
That is correct. Because CO2 effects are directly related to per capita. And the more population you have you need to be allowed to emit more. That CO2 doesn't have the same effects.
Amrite?
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2)
Because CO2 effects are directly related to per capita. And the more population you have you need to be allowed to emit more.
The vast majority of Chinese population lives in "houses" that lack electricity, yet we use them to lower the per-capita CO2 emissions of the minority population of Chinese citizens that get their electricity by burning coal? The same mathematical "trick" minimizes the per-capita environmental impact of the minority of Chinese workers that take in eWaste from around the world and spew countless tons of contaminants into the air in their open air recycling centers.
How many subsistence farmers does it take to
Re: (Score:2)
Because CO2 effects are directly related to per capita. And the more population you have you need to be allowed to emit more.
The vast majority of Chinese population lives in "houses" that lack electricity, yet we use them to lower the per-capita CO2 emissions of the minority population of Chinese citizens that get their electricity by burning coal? The same mathematical "trick" minimizes the per-capita environmental impact of the minority of Chinese workers that take in eWaste from around the world and spew countless tons of contaminants into the air in their open air recycling centers.
How many subsistence farmers does it take to make a coal-fired power plant "green"?
Truth! It definitely is a mathematical trick. The demand for per capita based mitigation allows the biggest polluters to do as they will while proclaiming their innocence, and the need to be allowed to spew as much as they wish.
The atmosphere does not work on a per capita basis. It operates on a total amount basis.
Re: (Score:1)
The vast majority of Chinese population lives in "houses" that lack electricity
Over 99% of Chinese homes have grid electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
That's misleading. By country, yes China's cumulative emissions have now passed Europe: https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
But per capita, China's cumulative emissions are still a tiny fraction of Europe's: https://www.reddit.com/r/susta... [reddit.com]
China had a brutal one-child policy and is now seeing population decline, so it's difficult to blame them for their population level given the extreme measures they took to control it.
Re: (Score:2)
China had a brutal one-child policy and is now seeing population decline, so it's difficult to blame them for their population level given the extreme measures they took to control it.
What China did not only didn't work, everyone told them it wouldn't work.
What reduces birth rates is allowing people to become educated and have a stake in the success of their nation. We know this because we have seen it happen time and again.
China doesn't want either of those things to happen because they are a repressive dictatorship and those can never survive widespread knowledge about their evil deeds. That's why the TPTB in the US and EU are continually attacking education. The Reagan era policy of d
Re: (Score:1)
China cumulative is still less than EU28 [ourworldindata.org] would be even less if you count Russia and non EU Europeans as Europe...
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2)
Why are you talking about "cumulative" emissions? We can't change what was, we can change what is and what will be.
What did China emit in 2023? Europe? U.S.? That's what's important, not the historical emissions.
Based on the cumulative chart you linked to, the U.S. has emitted the largest amount of CO2 over the past 175 years, since 1850, and China has emitted about 60% as much, but started about 100 years later.
Re: more taxes make weather better (Score:2)
So China is "clean" because of the number of people that populate the country, not because they emit less pollutants into the environment.
The issue is environmental impact, right? And that impact is measure by the volume of pollutants put into the environment, per-capita is a meaningless metric - it's a way to make some countries feel good, others feel bad, without actually changing anything.
Political boundaries aren't meaningful except to organize mitigation responses.
Right now China is a major emitter of
Re: (Score:1)
America emits 10x more than Canada. So America is 10x dirtier. Clean yourself up to at least Canada's level and then get back to us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why should the poorer cleaner people pay for America's damage?
They are not paying for America's damage, they are trying to catch up with causing it.
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't it bad when you do it?
a) Read my post again. I did not say it isn't bad. I was pointing out the fact that the pollution from those other countries is increasing, for example as more and more afford to go around on little 2-stroke motorbikes where they used to cycle not very long ago.
b) I don't live in America
c) I don't pollute anywhere near as much as the average in the "developed world". For example I commute by electric train.