Re-freezing Arctic with a submarine

[maginnovision]

I think part of the reason attributing CO2 to buyer rather than manufacturer is wrong is that eventually the manufacturer has many many items left over and sells them for whatever they can get. A manufacturer just creating X number of products because they only need to sell 1/8 of them to make a profit is wasteful and not on the buyers of any of them. Not to mention they could use better methods to manufacture and STILL beat european and american produced products costs because the human cost is still lower.

[coppice]

erm no, if i buy it i am responsible for all of the CO2 produced in it's manufacture. I really don't get why you want to spit hairs over this! If people did not buy these chinese products they would eventually stop manufacturing them... I dunno... maybe when they just happen to notice they have a warehouse full that is not going anywhere!

As a customer you can't be fully responsible for the CO2 used in manufacture, as you have no way to know how the goods were produced, and whether a more environmentally friendly method could have used. On the other hand letting your industrial base collapse, and importing all the things that use huge amounts of energy in their manufacture, does not allow you to claim huge improvements in your own CO2 output. Things are complex.

[coppice]

erm no, if i buy it i am responsible for all of the CO2 produced in it's manufacture. I really don't get why you want to spit hairs over this! If people did not buy these chinese products they would eventually stop manufacturing them... I dunno... maybe when they just happen to notice they have a warehouse full that is not going anywhere!

As a customer you can't be fully responsible for the CO2 used in manufacture, as you have no way to know how the goods were produced, and whether a more environmentally friendly method could have used. On the other hand letting your industrial base collapse, and importing all the things that use huge amounts of energy in their manufacture, does not allow you to claim huge improvements in your own CO2 output. Things are complex.

[Nominal Animal]

erm no, if i buy it i am responsible for all of the CO2 produced in it's manufacture. I really don't get why you want to spit hairs over this!

Because that attitude is simplistic, and will not lead to any statistically meaningful change.  It may make you feel better (as if you were carrying your weight), but it matters as much as retweeting or upvoting a social media post: changes nothing.  To you, it is splitting hairs; to me, it is trying to show you that you are concentrating on an irrelevant detail -- your personal behaviour, accepting personal responsibility over something you in fact have very little power over -- while the matter at hand requires an objective look at human behaviour and large-scale statistics.

The underlying issue you are completely missing is that each product can be manufactured in various ways.  The product itself is not the cause for the CO₂ emissions and other pollution; it varies based on the manufacture.  It is the manufacture that generates the pollution, and there are many ways to do it.  Typically, the less polluting ways are slightly more expensive.  Usually, it is the high up-front investment, and not the slightly increased per-product manufacturing costs, that makes it "hard" to justify the added cost.

Current international trade agreements do not allow individual markets to place taxes or tariffs based on the pollution generated when manufacturing the product.  This is a key problem.

You cannot convince people to reduce their standard of living, just to place pressure on manufacturers.  Let's say you get a religious following, and manage that.  Then, you run into politics, and will be quashed.  Just look at how many countries have made the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel illegal.  Whether you think that movement is right or wrong is not material here, the point is that they certainly believe they are morally and ethically right, and are trying to use individual-level pressure to change a state-level actor.

To reduce emissions, you cannot act on a scale smaller than a country or state.  You can blame individuals as much as you like, but fact is, an individual does not have much power over where a thing was manufactured and how -- even for foodstuffs, governments control how much information customers can demand: consider GMO.

Your plan seems to be to convince people to consume less.  That will not work, because it has never worked before, and the fairness tests on monkeys shows that it would not work even on monkeys; it is that deep in us, biological.  Nature, not nurture.  Disagree all you like, but these are the facts we have.

I am saying that the way you want others to interpret statistics -- either per capita, ignoring the fact that individuals cannot really choose whether they pay more for less-polluting manufacture or not, because they have no way to find out the true manufacturing chain and the pollution involved --, or by making assumptions about how much blame to shift, is useless, because it does not help bring about any kind of a solution.
Your argument only confuses the issue, and makes it easier for humans to forgo objective facts, and argue based on emotion.

Emotionally, making people accept responsibility or culpability is a powerful tool, but here, it misdirects people away from true, long-term solutions.

[Simon]

No you have conveniently forgotten this bit where you claimed that the EU emissions was only 9% so we have done our bit. I am pointing out that it is not that simple. the EU emissions are EU located only and do not take into account the manufacturing that takes place outside of the Eu like china. I'm sorry but you have to stop accusing me of "thinngs" that mean i am out of touch. If you in the EU purchase a product the polution created as a consequence of its manufacture is not attributed to the EU. Do you deny this? you have so far. Therefore there is no point in saying nothing we can do.

Why do we purchase mobile phone contracts that "give" us a new phone every year? why do we take those phones even when we don't need them? but it's OK it's all the fault of the country they were manufactured in........

[Nominal Animal]

No you have conveniently forgotten this bit where you claimed that the EU emissions was only 9% so we have done our bit.

No.  I pointed out that EU directly produces 9.57% of the worldwide total.  I haven't claimed that EU has done its bit.  I do believe EU countries having reduced carbon emissions by 19.2% from 1990 should be considered, though.

You claimed west was responsible for most of the emissions.  That is not true, and you seem to be unable to accept it is not true.

I am pointing out that it is not that simple. the EU emissions are EU located only and do not take into account the manufacturing that takes place outside of the Eu like china.

Because at this moment, EU cannot legally affect how China does that manufacturing, I do not believe EU is responsible for those emissions.  I already said I don't have an opinion what the correct factor is, but that it is probably somewhere in the middle.

Even if you use the 0.5 factor, i.e. half of the CO₂ is attributed to manufacturer, and half to the end customer -- the contribution of "the west" to CO₂ emissions is less than 50%.  Remember, China is perfectly capable of curbing the emissions as the technology exists, they just consider it too expensive.  The CO₂ scrubbers are already basically mandatory in Europe; it's just China and the US who consider them too expensive for their businesses.

I'm sorry but you have to stop accusing me of "thinngs" that mean i am out of touch.

Why, because you are a moderator here?  As long as you are wrong and refuse to acknowledge the facts, I will keep pointing them out in an open discussion.

If you in the EU purchase a product the polution created as a consequence of its manufacture is not attributed to the EU.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions as of 2017 I've linked to at Wikipedia, only accounts for manufacture, not who buys the stuff.

You seem to claim that the manufacturer is never to blame, even if they choose not to use CO₂ scrubbers because they'd cut into their profit margins, and it is the customers who need to carry the burden.  That is what the statistics you linked to, do.  I think that is absolutely insane, because it does not reflect reality, and does not help finding any real-world solutions to the issue.

As I said earlier, if you wish to correctly attribute the CO₂ emissions, you need to split the emissions between the manufacturer and the end user, using a coefficient between 0 and 1.  You insist it is 1, because they buy the stuff, and I keep telling you that is simplistic and does not lead to any kind of solutions; it is an emotive argument that leads nowhere.

You claim I believe it should be 0, but I've already said that I don't know what the factor should be, only that I think it is likely closer to the middle (0.5) than any of the end points (0 or 1).

Even at the 0.5, "the west" accounts for less than half the world's fossil carbon emissions.

Therefore there is no point in saying nothing we can do.

But that's exactly the opposite what I am saying!

I am saying that an individual making "informed choices" about what to buy, is pissing in the wind; even if people do that in the hundreds of thousands, politics will intervene and defuse the little pressure they have.  I provided the BDS movement as an example.

I am saying that political action at the state/country level, say import tariffs based on the manufacture of the products, I believe would make a significant change; and is possible.
I am saying that thus far, advances in technology has saved us, and we haven't killed ourselves yet.
I am saying that humans will never voluntarily reduce their quality of living, to benefit future generations or other people they do not know.
I am saying that even if the worst climate change predictions are true, it will not be the end of mankind and life on Earth; it will just be a slow but thorough change, and probably affect every human being alive in profound ways.
I am saying that if we want to minimize the anthropogenic causes for climate change (CO₂, other greenhouse gases, pollution), we only need to decimate the human population (in the Roman sense, i.e. to somewhere under a short billion), but it would be monstrous.

why do we take those phones even when we don't need them?

I'm on my third cellphone since 1997.  I still have them all in working condition.

Look.  I understand you want westerners to feel guilty for causing most of the pollution and fossile carbon emissions.  I don't know why.  I also know that if you look at the statistics rationally, west directly or indirectly causes say about half, but definitely not most.
Europe has managed to cut almost a fifth of its carbon emissions in the last three decades or so, and now contributes less than one tenth of the total.  That should count for something.
US has the same carbon emissions as it had three decades ago, so they definitely have avoided pulling their weight.
China is growing at an amazing pace, but have thus far refused to seriously invest in cutting pollution.  They've apparently even allowed someone to start manufacturing freons again.  The only way to change this is through international politics.  BDS movements are useless, because before they have any measurable effect, politicians step in and defuse them.

Can't you see?  If you do not want to put all your eggs in one basket and hope that technology will save us, state/country level politics is the only thing where a meaningful change is possible.  Blaming "west", especially Europeans, makes that change less likely (especially considering the decades of emission-curbing investments and efforts), giving those who want to keep polluting to make better profits an easy way out.

[Simon]

I give up and refuse to read a huge wall of text. You don't need to say that much to explain.

[CatalinaWOW]

US is not pulling as hard as some others, but having the same emissions as three decades ago, while having significant economic and population growth is not the same as nothing.  Or maybe we should start whining that the  emissions from the roughly 25 million immigrants over those three decades should be counted against their countries of origin.

As with all big issues it gets really complicated when you look at the details.

[coppice]

US is not pulling as hard as some others, but having the same emissions as three decades ago, while having significant economic and population growth is not the same as nothing.  Or maybe we should start whining that the  emissions from the roughly 25 million immigrants over those three decades should be counted against their countries of origin.

As with all big issues it gets really complicated when you look at the details.

When you consider how much heavy industry has left the US for China, Mexico and elsewhere, and the significant improvements in vehicle consumption, no reduction in CO2 emissions doesn't seem very impressive, even with the population growth.

[hamster_nz]

US is not pulling as hard as some others, but having the same emissions as three decades ago, while having significant economic and population growth is not the same as nothing.  Or maybe we should start whining that the  emissions from the roughly 25 million immigrants over those three decades should be counted against their countries of origin.

As with all big issues it gets really complicated when you look at the details.

When you consider how much heavy industry has left the US for China, Mexico and elsewhere, and the significant improvements in vehicle consumption, no reduction in CO2 emissions doesn't seem very impressive, even with the population growth.

Apparently NZ is well on target to meet Kyoto agreements, which are "5 per cent reduction below 1990 gross emissions for the period 2013-2020"

From the Ministry for the Environment:

We report progress towards the 2020 target in the net position report. New Zealand is on track to meet this target.

Also from the Ministry for the Environment:

In 1990, New Zealand’s net emissions were 34,506.5 kt CO2-e. Between 1990 and 2017, net GHG emissions increased by 22,388.5 kt CO2-e (64.9 per cent) to 56,895.0 kt CO2-e.

Net emissions are after land use changes and other bits and bobs, actual emissions are significantly higher.

There is a lot of creative accounting to convert from the 173% of 1990 levels that it actually is, back to the 95% of 1990 levels that was promised, but if other developed countries do the same it explains the continuing trend in atmospheric CO2 levels even with all this proclaimed political action - at least to me.

The whole "meeting emissions targets" thing seems to be a sham!

[Simon]

US is not pulling as hard as some others, but having the same emissions as three decades ago, while having significant economic and population growth is not the same as nothing.  Or maybe we should start whining that the  emissions from the roughly 25 million immigrants over those three decades should be counted against their countries of origin.

As with all big issues it gets really complicated when you look at the details.

Which is what I am trying to say. As i said in the UK despite increase in population aur electricity consumption has flatlined but! we used to use more electric for heating and our device were not as efficient. As usage has grown so has efficiency. we have peaked and flatlined but we will continue to grow again.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But don't worry guys, because 30 thousand people from all around the world meet today in Madrid and they're gonna fix it for ya. You pay the party, thank you very much.

Sadly, China and the US of A aren't coming.

[SerieZ]

There is only a commercial advantage when there is a market to sell into.

If we wouldn't accept the cheap goods then they would only make the more expensive ones, so the buyer is at least partly to blame.

In the figure Simon showed, not "partly"; completely.  Those statistics are calculated as if the buyer caused all the pollution needed to manufacture the product.

We could discuss what factor between 0% and 100% we could use (I really don't have an opinion, except that it probably is somewhere in the middle and not at either end), but it would become politics really fast, as "free trade" is strictly regulated, and it is near impossible for any single country (except a large one like USA or Russia, or a union like EU) to impose tariffs for products simply because of pollution in manufacture.

erm no, if i buy it i am responsible for all of the CO2 produced in it's manufacture. I really don't get why you want to spit hairs over this! If people did not buy these chinese products they would eventually stop manufacturing them... I dunno... maybe when they just happen to notice they have a warehouse full that is not going anywhere!

it's not a case of blame gaming or politics. It's the simple fact that my goods are not made in my home country therefore if you want to look at the impact that people make individually everything they consume is down to them no matter where it is made. i can't have a stupidly lavish lifestyle and blame all the emmissions on the countries that made my stuff.

Do you blame the addict or the drug dealer? A question of ethics, maybe?
You seem fail to realize many people do not have a choice, are frugal or are plain Ignorant/Apathetic.

And while we heavily regulate all our Industries and lifestyles it is meaningless while the rest of the world Ignores it.

In my opinion you blame the ones putting the stuff in the Air and not regulating them to obtain an "Unfair" Market advantage not the Consumerist Drones.
Or do you expect you can stop people from buying stupid things?

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

And please stop with the masochism and moralism, thanks.

[BravoV]

What about the "parties" that had dumped CO2 for centuries since the beginning of industrialism era ? 

So just let go, live with it, and let us holding hand in hand, forget the past and sing together ... (rhyming)

Our past mistakes
It is now your responsibilities ...
Yes ..
YOU ...
New comers piss poor dirts from underdeveloped/developing countries ...

 

[SerieZ]

What about the "parties" that had dumped CO2 for centuries since the beginning of industrialism era ? 

So just let go, live with it, and let us holding hand in hand, forget the past and sing together ... (rhyming)

Our past mistakes
It is now your responsibilities ...
Yes ..
YOU ...
New comers piss poor dirts from underdeveloped/developing countries ...

 

PEANUTS compared to what we are shoving out right now.
And then again: You can look at good old US of A and MAYBE the UK.

  But Yeah blame the Europeans for everything while it is the rest of the world who sit in heaps of Garbage due to their Incompetent and Corrupt Government.

What do you suggest? Climate Colonialism and Europe cleans up the ass of the rest of the world? OR people starting to be responsible on their own? 

EDIT: New comers piss poor dirts from underdeveloped/developing countries ...
USA is not piss poor nor is it underdeveloped
China is not piss poor, nor is it underdeveloped
India is mostly piss poor but they also licked blood of the wellbeing

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

Are you serious?

[SerieZ]

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

Are you serious?

I fail to see the purpose of the question.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

Are you serious?

I fail to see the purpose of the question.

Easy: do you really believe that would be a good thing? If so, I think you're sick. May I ask how old are you?

[SerieZ]

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

Are you serious?

I fail to see the purpose of the question.

Easy: do you really believe that would be a good thing? If so, I think you're sick. May I ask how old are you?

My Age is absolutetly irrelevant to this oversimplified train of thought I put out.
I do not think a tax patch will be a solution to the Problem no.

Get a grip. 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

My Age is absolutetly irrelevant to this oversimplified train of thought I put out.

I asked because I see many youngsters nowadays that want to forbid this and that and think that taxing this and that would be a good thing too.

I do not think a tax patch will be a solution to the Problem no.

 

[SerieZ]

My Age is absolutetly irrelevant to this oversimplified train of thought I put out.

I asked because I see many youngsters nowadays that want to forbid this and that and think that taxing this and that would be a good thing too.

I do not think a tax patch will be a solution to the Problem no.

 

What other "Youngsters" (my notion is it certain older demographic who incite this into youngsters) fail to see the absolute pointlessness in self flagelation and masochism over this.

Ok - We revert Europe back to the Darke Ages with 0 carbon Emissions. Now what?
We need to find real solutions, and hey, what if it can also help more people to be lifted out of Poverty at the same time?

I just abhore the Fatalists, the Hysterical Panic Makers (sorry Scientific Consensus is not reflecting a Michael Bay Movie Scenario), the Charlatans who see this very real issue as a backdoor to further their own Agenda... and also the Deniers (I dont think we should overthrow Democracy and Individualism because of those as suggested by some falling into one of the earlier Categories).


Id like to remind everyone that we already tackled a big enviromental Issue (Ozone layer) in the past, we can do it again - with Innovation and Research.
I wonder why the Hysteria was big about it in the 90s but the Celebration so few when the Problem seems solved. 

 

[Simon]

There is only a commercial advantage when there is a market to sell into.

If we wouldn't accept the cheap goods then they would only make the more expensive ones, so the buyer is at least partly to blame.

In the figure Simon showed, not "partly"; completely.  Those statistics are calculated as if the buyer caused all the pollution needed to manufacture the product.

We could discuss what factor between 0% and 100% we could use (I really don't have an opinion, except that it probably is somewhere in the middle and not at either end), but it would become politics really fast, as "free trade" is strictly regulated, and it is near impossible for any single country (except a large one like USA or Russia, or a union like EU) to impose tariffs for products simply because of pollution in manufacture.

erm no, if i buy it i am responsible for all of the CO2 produced in it's manufacture. I really don't get why you want to spit hairs over this! If people did not buy these chinese products they would eventually stop manufacturing them... I dunno... maybe when they just happen to notice they have a warehouse full that is not going anywhere!

it's not a case of blame gaming or politics. It's the simple fact that my goods are not made in my home country therefore if you want to look at the impact that people make individually everything they consume is down to them no matter where it is made. i can't have a stupidly lavish lifestyle and blame all the emmissions on the countries that made my stuff.

Do you blame the addict or the drug dealer? A question of ethics, maybe?
You seem fail to realize many people do not have a choice, are frugal or are plain Ignorant/Apathetic.

And while we heavily regulate all our Industries and lifestyles it is meaningless while the rest of the world Ignores it.

In my opinion you blame the ones putting the stuff in the Air and not regulating them to obtain an "Unfair" Market advantage not the Consumerist Drones.
Or do you expect you can stop people from buying stupid things?

Put a Climate tax on all Products produced in Countries who fail to meet Climate standards. No more cheap electronics for anyone.

And please stop with the masochism and moralism, thanks.

It has nothing to do with masochism or moralism, perhaps you could stop trolling. It's a simple fact of mathematics! while we cannot break down into who did what when goods move between countries there is no point in putting our fingers in our ears and singing lalalalalalala the EU only produces 9.5% we are not ausing any of the other emmissions. If you want to be honest and factual instead of trolling you would admit that the 9.5% is not the whole story. But clearly you could not give a toss about the truth.

I am not blaming anyone or trying to be moral. Just pointing aut a FACT!!!

[Simon]

I just abhore the Fatalists, the Hysterical Panic Makers (sorry Scientific Consensus is not reflecting a Michael Bay Movie Scenario), the Charlatans who see this very real issue as a backdoor to further their own Agenda... and also the Deniers (I dont think we should overthrow Democracy and Individualism because of those as suggested by some falling into one of the earlier Categories).


 

I abhore people putting words in my mouth! i am no fan of the extreme demonstrators either. But I can face facts instead of call people hysteric because I don't agree with them!

[SerieZ]

What Fact? Europeans started Industralisation? Sure - But you know, these people can claim Ignorance as defence. Modern Age people cannot.
You want a real Fact? While European countries are having a down trend in carbon emissions, certain other countries do not, in fact quite the opposite.

Funny you call this Trolling, but I just dont believe in inherited guilt but in looking for Solutions. Maybe with the so called newcomers as well, ...but only when it is on eye level.

[Simon]

yes our emissions reduced as our manufacturing shifted abroad. You really are pulling all the stops out aren't you........