SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (70091)5/17/2016 1:11:24 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86350
 
Colonialism, Racism and the Climate Movement

Eric Worrall / 4 hours ago May 17, 2016

China’s burgeoning coal power industry

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

If climate change is predicted to hit “poor people” worse than “rich people”, then why aren’t green efforts focussed on helping poor people overcome their poverty?

It has long been expected that poor people would bear the brunt of climate change, largely because so many more of the world’s poorest live in tropical latitudes whereas, wealthier people tend to live in more temperate regions.

This is inverse to the generally accepted responsibility for climate change, which falls mainly on rich countries that benefited early on from industry, and thus have historically high emissions, compared with poorer countries that have only begun catching up in the past few decades.

It was only in 2014 that China’s per capita emissions caught up with those of people in the EU, even after years of above-average economic growth in China.

Those living in the poorest countries also have the most to lose, as so many depend on agriculture, which is likely to be badly affected by temperature rises and an increase in droughts, heatwaves and potential changes to rainfall that may lead to recurrent patterns of floods, droughts and higher intensity storms.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/17/global-warming-will-hit-poorer-countries-hardest-finds-research

The suggestion that poor people will be hit by climate change, the implicit assumption they will be unable to adapt, in my opinion intrinsically embraces the old colonialist justifications for interfering in the affairs of others – an unspoken assumption that poor mostly non-white people are somehow less capable than the majority white inhabitants of rich countries, and need to be saved from their own unassailable mediocrity.

China rose from abject poverty to world economic superpower in just a few decades, without outside help. I remember when people spoke of Chinese imports with barely concealed contempt, a byword for shoddy quality and poor workmanship. Nowadays businesses turn to China for their manufacturing expertise. There is nothing lacking in the ability of Chinese people to improve their personal circumstances – all they needed was for their government to get out of the way.

There is no reason why other poor people can’t do the same.

If you truly believe poor people will be hit hardest by climate change, stop treating poor people as victims. Find low cost ways to help poor people help themselves, such as eliminating trade barriers. See if there are ways of eliminating other unnecessary impediments to development, such as economically damaging roadblocks to building affordable energy infrastructure.

Stop treating poor people as an intractable group of stupids, who are incapable of improving their own lives, incapable of aspiring to wealth on a par with the privileged columnists who seek to assuage their consumerist angst, by wallowing in the perceived misery of others.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/colonialism-racism-and-the-climate-movement/

Charlie says:
May 17, 2016 at 2:04 am

Guardian : “the generally accepted responsibility for climate change, which falls mainly on rich countries”

Nope.



Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2015). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2011, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015



To: Brumar89 who wrote (70091)5/17/2016 3:12:32 PM
From: Gary Mohilner  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86350
 
Even if I were to accept everything stated in this report, I believe their are a few questions that if honestly answered would lead us all in the same direction.

1. Are we better off breathing cleaner air?

2. Are we better off drinking purer water?

Even if changes that made the above happen didn't change global warming, or cooling at all, wouldn't we be better off working toward those goals.

I frankly don't care about the short term costs, I believe we'd be better off employing millions of people with both green initiatives and infrastructure repair and modernization than having tens or hundreds of thousands of people working in coal mines. Federal incentives for such work would almost certainly add debt short term, but both the infrastructure modernization and greater green initiatives should result in greater permanent employment that isn't ultimately Federally supported and the long term net would be positive. Most importantly, the technologies created here to improve things would be exported all over the world.

If the author of your report is correct, and we'll shortly be in a cooling trend, great. I'll go back to the first 2 questions, can anyone deny we'd be better off breathing cleaner air and drinking purer water.

Gary