I would argue global cooperation to combat climate change is being disrupted by those who are to blame for it
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5244 readers
273 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fossil fuel companies are to blame for climate change. Inequality is making it worse
It's me guys, I did climate change. I said I would stop, but single-use straws at Starbucks are just too damn convenient. I see the error of my ways now and I'm going to commit to a 50% reduction over the next 8 years. I think you're really going to be happy with the results, things are definitely looking greener.
Brexit has left the building. :(
That aside, i dont agree and this way lies stagnation.
The Russian Government has nothing in common with the goals of climate mitigation nor does the US government for that matter. The US and Russian government's for example are well aligned in the biospheres destruction.
If you're not closing airports, banning cars, rebuilding roads and car parks with cycling and small medium density well insulated with and shrubs and trees around s, solar on the roof, closing roads and buildong electrified trains, if you're not banning meat eating pet ownership, cruise ships, personal yachts, jet skis, power boats, banning advertising then you're going the wrong way.
All we get fron cooperation is slight incrementism that's then argued away.
My proof ? We're not even taking baby steps in the rihht dirction, if we were it would have at least paused CO2 emissions with a slight decline but April saw the single largest increase in CO2ppm ever recorded and people are jetting around the world to attend a Taylor Swift concert in response.
Meeting climate goals has to create an actual advantage for countries or well avoid them punishment from the international community. Blind cooperation is nice in theory, but it just does not work in practise. So we need proper funding from the wealthy countries, maybe leveraged from tariffs based on historic emissions, which then can go to poor countries, which only recieve the money, if they meet certain targets like stay below emission per capita levels or new fossil fuel infrastructure. At the same time we need to punish current emissions. For that systems like emissions based tariffs would work well. Other things can be done in trade agreements as well. I really like tariffs here, because they create a real monetary insentive for good action and that is kind of what works.
But be nice to China, otherwise they kill the planet is not going to work. Same story for the US and every other country on the planet. Nice words from politicans do not save the climate.