tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513963011536895932.post5931492233527502767..comments2020-03-04T03:46:25.162+09:00Comments on Taking A Moment To Think: climate change: who pays?Semprinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08786207993240429842noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513963011536895932.post-83519428902791271462010-01-23T19:38:21.715+09:002010-01-23T19:38:21.715+09:00>>>>>>>>>>>>
T...>>>>>>>>>>>><br />Thinking about this, I try to take the long view: not all humans would die, so the civilization would continue, and maybe the catastrophe would cause a basic change in human character, get people to take the long view rather than selfish short-term interest. How's that for optimism? :-)<br /><<<<<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />It's a very pessimistic sort of optimism! :-(<br /><br />I know there's one class of people whom, when I speak to them about this, classify as 'optimistic'; they shrug and say "well, someone will invent something to get us out of this mess". Hoping some you-beaut invention will materialise that will absorb all those pesky carbons, or provide cheap free energy, or *something*.<br /><br />It's akin to hoping that someone - not them - will wave a magic wand and wish it all away. :-)<br /><br />Where's super!Luna when we need her? :-)<br /><br />But that's risky 'planning', of the "I can't be bothered, someone else will hopefully solve it" variety.<br /><br />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br />That was a guess, based on something I read not too long ago that said that America uses 25% of the world's resources while constituting only 4% of the world's population.<br /><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br /><br />The only statistic resembling that form which I *do* remember properly is that the USA has 75% of the world's lawyers. Which is something else that's very frightening (if you're an American).<br /><br />(I'm pretty sure I recall that you're not a lawyer! :-))Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09805639038947974566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513963011536895932.post-11883821831920690002010-01-23T00:29:54.292+09:002010-01-23T00:29:54.292+09:00>After fifteen years those two and a half billi...>After fifteen years those two and a half billion Chinese and Indians would have poured more pollutants into the air than the USA ever did, I'd warrant.<br /><br />Interesting question. The numbers suggest they could, but while almost all U.S. citizens were driving cars and otherwise consuming, the vast majority of those two countries don't have the means to do it now, and while their capacity will grow over the next 15 years, I think it won't get high enough to rival the U.S. Only recently did China pass Japan in total GNP, and Japan has less than 1/10 of China's population. Japan's population is only about 40% of the U.S.'s, so China has quite a ways to go. My rough guess is that growing at 10% a year, China could catch the U.S. in total GNP by the end of the 15 years. And I'm pretty sure India isn't as far along as China.<br /><br />>Human nature being what it is, you can bet your boots that China and India would be going all-out to 'use up' their fifteen years of grace as much as possible.<br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />>> America has over the past 60 years accounted for 25% of global GNP, and was therefore responsible for 25% of global warming.<br /><br />>Something makes me think that you're letting the USA off lightly. For decades the Americans had the reputation of having the big petrol-guzzler cars and so forth. Being more extravagant in their energy use than any other western country.<br /><br />That was a guess, based on something I read not too long ago that said that America uses 25% of the world's resources while constituting only 4% of the world's population. It certainly may have used a higher proportion in the past.<br /><br />>It's frightening.<br /><br />It certainly is. Thinking about this, I try to take the long view: not all humans would die, so the civilization would continue, and maybe the catastrophe would cause a basic change in human character, get people to take the long view rather than selfish short-term interest. How's that for optimism? :-)Semprinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08786207993240429842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513963011536895932.post-59581904384122390542010-01-22T19:08:39.458+09:002010-01-22T19:08:39.458+09:00It's that old and super-frustrating problem ag...It's that old and super-frustrating problem again, isn't it - the right thing to do versus short-term self-interest. As most horribly/obviously exemplified by those big-name business interests.<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />> After 15 years, we'll agree to renegotiate based on GNP over the past twenty years."<br /><br />After fifteen years those two and a half billion Chinese and Indians would have poured more pollutants into the air than the USA ever did, I'd warrant.<br /><br />Human nature being what it is, you can bet your boots that China and India would be going all-out to 'use up' their fifteen years of grace as much as possible.<br /><br />> America has over the past 60 years accounted for 25% of global GNP, and was therefore responsible for 25% of global warming.<br /><br />Something makes me think that you're letting the USA off lightly. For decades the Americans had the reputation of having the big petrol-guzzler cars and so forth. Being more extravagant in their energy use than any other western country.<br /><br />Still, the fasts may be otherwise.<br /><br />> there's more than enough evidence that we're in great danger, so no one can say we weren't warned.<br /><br />It's frightening.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09805639038947974566noreply@blogger.com