Post by Ordayc
Also the main culprit of carbon emissions these days is China. So many want to hamper the US specifically, but also other western nations like much of the EU, when really if we want to globally reduce emissions we must look at China first, because they have the worst regulation and are growing the fastest. It's very hypocritical to me for everyone to point the finger at the US but ignore China, which is no longer a developing country industrially.
I'm not very familiar with this topic, but judging simply by
this wikipedia article, this is a pretty bold statement to make. Yes, China's emissions are the largest of any country in the world, but so is its population. On a per-capita basis, the US's emissions are still almost three times as high as China's. Judging a country without accounting for its population would mean that most of Europe's countries (which are tiny compared to the US, China, India, etc.) basically could do whatever they want to.
Post by gamerunknown
Not to mention that US companies creating products in China for US markets are counted as Chinese emissions. Nor that there's broad scientific consensus as to man's contribution to climate change and that "proof" as a scientific concept has been dead for several decades (science now progresses by falsification).
It's not the only
fact challenged issue though.
Post by Squishalot
Also the main culprit of carbon emissions these days is China. So many want to hamper the US specifically, but also other western nations like much of the EU, when really if we want to globally reduce emissions we must look at China first, because they have the worst regulation and are growing the fastest. It's very hypocritical to me for everyone to point the finger at the US but ignore China, which is no longer a developing country industrially.
I'm not very familiar with this topic, but judging simply by
this wikipedia article, this is a pretty bold statement to make. Yes, China's emissions are the largest of any country in the world, but so is its population. On a per-capita basis, the US's emissions are still almost three times as high as China's. Judging a country without accounting for its population would mean that most of Europe's countries (which are tiny compared to the US, China, India, etc.) basically could do whatever they want to.
I like to point people to
this graphic, which shows the total carbon emissions side by side with the per-capita carbon emissions.
Ignoring the countries with very low populations on the right hand side, the larger circles represent those countries that have the most to do to reduce emissions.
China is growing the fastest, but it has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near as bad as any of the Western developed nations on a per-capita basis.
If you think Iran is only researching nuclear energy you are crazy. Everyone knows Iran runs a very thinly veiled dictatorship, run by religious fanatics. There's a huge difference between saying "we want to regulate US economic/environmental policies" and "we want to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb and wiping out millions of innocent lives."
Of course I know they want nuclear weapons. However, it's a political issue about them not having access to nuclear weapons. If you let Iran have a nuclear bomb, they may kill millions, billions of people. If you let the developed nations of the world keep polluting, it may also kill millions, billions of people. If you're happy to sanction Iran and sacrifice their economic growth and output in order to save people in the future, then you yourself should be happy to be sanctioned for the same reasons. No matter which way you spin it around, you can't argue that the UN is right to impose restrictions on others but not you.
Considering the number of acts of aggression made by countries, the UN would be more justified in telling the US to shut down its nuclear armament, not countries that a) have no evidence of nuclear arms testing and b) have zero incentive to start a nuclear war.