this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
-6 points (12.5% liked)
World News
32077 readers
1383 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You realize that paying C02 emissions based on capita for a country makes no sense. If you believe a country should be paying than it pays per country impact. So that would stipulate that China needs to be paying twice what the U.S. does.... which I somehow imagine you aren't going to agree with.
You have to account for outsourcing of industry when considering emissions. If the emissions are coming from China, but they're coming from a US-based company that's making products for people in the US, then you can't really blame China for those emissions. It's certainly not a simple matter, but let's not pretend like this is some impossible thing to measure.
China must pay its fair share to help save the world, but determining "fair share" is more complicated than just determining how much carbon came from within the borders of the country.
Measure by emissions within your country. If China allows a company to operate within their borders they are responsible for said fees. Pass the fees to those companis if you wish, but they are their lands. The companies will move elsewhere if the fees are to high or find alternative ways to do business producing less emissions. It really isn't tough to figure out.
China has only been allowed to grow as much as it has because it has played nice with American capitalism, so can you even imagine the global economic and geopolitical melt down that would cause? If China started forcing all polluting industries to either clean up or get out of their country it would cause the greatest economic depression in history, start a new Cold War, and probably lead to World War 3.
More likely it would just get negotiated that costs needed to be less per emissions and then they had x years to make efforts to prove they are mitigating as much as possible. And the same old shit would carry on as it is right now.
(Not saying this is what I want, just that this is how it seems)
What on Earth does "costs needed to be less per emissions" mean?
Same bullshit as always. No one will end up paying an amount that will "re-pay" sufficiently. Instead it just goes back to hoping tech advancments move us to cleaner energy quickly.
(Aka. If they were going to pay x per footprint, they instead would pay x/y)
... okay so x/y is the same as x per y
meters per second = meters / seconds