I think I have the answer …
-
wrote on 26 May 2025, 22:05 last edited by
Let’s throw tomato soup at the Mona Lisa.
-
wrote on 27 May 2025, 11:20 last edited by
Gotta to really ask if we really want to "catch up," as our population size is about a quarter of theirs, so we are still ahead by a lot on per capita basis. But if we want to grow electricity generation at that rate, we'd have to go nuclear, and expand grid capacity bigly.
-
wrote on 27 May 2025, 11:27 last edited by
Missed the point. It’s not about being jealous of their electrical capacity, it’s making fun of the idea that western nations can stop carbon loading of the atmosphere.
-
wrote 23 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 23 days ago last edited by
This may be a bit more accurate way to look at it. Carbon per capita.
-
wrote 23 days ago last edited by jon-nyc 6 Apr 2025, 02:30
The climate cares not a whim about your Kantian meta ethics. Who is increasing carbon loading of the atmosphere and who isn’t? This is what will matter moving forward.
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
Human is a big driver of climate change.
Human cares about "fairness" (I suppose that's what you call Kantian meta ethics.)
Ergo "fairness" matter. -
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
What Jon is sadly missing in this discussion is that The Mona Lisa is in France. If you want to upset Americans, throw soup at an Andy Warhol, which would get extra points for irony.
-
The climate cares not a whim about your Kantian meta ethics. Who is increasing carbon loading of the atmosphere and who isn’t? This is what will matter moving forward.
wrote 22 days ago last edited by@jon-nyc said in I think I have the answer …:
The climate cares not a whim about your Kantian meta ethics. Who is increasing carbon loading of the atmosphere and who isn’t? This is what will matter moving forward.
But nobody wants to be poor. And being rich requires more energy. So, hard to tell somebody in India to stay poor because it helps the environment. Or, maybe it is harder to expect that Indian to agree.
-
This may be a bit more accurate way to look at it. Carbon per capita.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@taiwan_girl said in I think I have the answer …:
This may be a bit more accurate way to look at it. Carbon per capita.
80% of the per capita US emissions are from all the energy people are expending screaming about emissions. Private Jets for Algore to go to climate conferences, and all of the internet bandwidth being used to protest nuclear…