The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China’s top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.

      • kitonthenet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t matter, if they’re still gonna burn coal I shouldn’t have to switch to renewables either, or at the very least not on the quick timetable. Either all in or not at all, it’s not like the effects above 2C aren’t going to kill everyone anyway

          • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately it’s an easy sentiment to promulgate. It taps into feelings of fairness and justice. Those are some very foundational emotional drivers for humans

            However, I think there’s a chance to turn that sort of reasoning around. Like if we appeal to the idea of right and wrong. If using fossil fuels is like stealing or assault or worse, then the fact that someone else is doing it doesn’t suddenly make it ok. It makes the person doing it a bad person.

            The problem with fossil fuel use currently is that so many people are using them and whole countries and ways of life have been built around using them. Getting rid of fossil fuels has the potential to be as disruptive as getting rid of slavery.

        • Voroxpete
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Effects above 2C will not, in fact, “Kill everyone.” The idea that this whole thing is some binary condition between “Everything is fine” and “Everyone dies” is complete nonsense. Every fraction of a degree we reduce or prevent will make a difference to survivability and quality of life for people all across the planet.

          It all matters (in the sense that every country, big and small, should be trying to decarbonise; obviously, those efforts should be targeted on billionaires and massive pollution driving industries where we’ll make an actual difference, not completely ineffectual headline grabbed like plastic bags and drinking straws).

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because on a per-capita basis, you still outpollute China by a factor of at least 2?

      Because unlike China, your government moves incredibly slowly and needs more momentum to actually accomplish change?

      • kitonthenet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Per capita basis

        Carbon is carbon, mass is mass, and heat is heat, none of it cares about population size, we could just as easily look at it as a per-gdp basis, and it would be just as useful

        Government of China says we don’t need to change, or at least they don’t, I don’t think I should either then. Especially considering no climate change policy works without the whole world decarbonizing, including China, regardless of how small their number looks on a per capita basis

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          China is moving faster on renewables than every other country. China is moving faster on EVs than every other country.

          Who’s not changing?

            • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you feel like giving China a domestic supply of O&G so they can switch their coal plants to gas ones, be my guest.

              That’s been the single greatest contributor to reduced emissions in North America and Europe over the past few decades.