Global warming strikes again...

[Samson]

If you argue for reindustrialization in First World countries and creating jobs at home with industry being subject to more strict regulations, rather than subsidize the next authoritarian superpower, wasting incredible amount of resources and creating incredible pollution in idiotic merchandize transportation, supporting oversea slave work and scaling back globalization, then trust me I'm with you.

But the fact that France/Italy/UK are at ONE THIRD of US/Australia/Canada carbon emissions, tells me it's probably first and foremost about incredibly wasteful behaviour and maybe lack of regulations.

I totally agree there is a lot more "low hanging fruit" in the US that the UK, below is a graph I found. More than half the cars sold in the US have more than a 3.2 litre engine? Considering it is possible for more than half to have less than 1.2 litre (India). Madness.

 

[Lexicus]

But the fact that France/Italy/UK are at ONE THIRD of US/Australia/Canada carbon emissions, tells me it's probably first and foremost about incredibly wasteful behaviour and maybe lack of regulations.

It strikes me as being very likely about transportation and density. France, Italy, and the UK are smaller countries that will find it easier to rely on things like rail that are much less carbon intensive than cars and trucks. Now, I'm of course not claiming that it is impossible for the US, Canada, and Australia to develop rail infrastructure but it is more expensive to do this when your population is spread out as these countries' populations are. I know for a fact that transportation is the largest category of emissions in the US.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would you deny them these things simply to save the planet all while hypocritically keeping these things to yourself? They would see this as a neo-imperialist Westerner who despises them and just wants to kick them down, never allowing them to become rich like said Westerner. They see how we got rich off of fossil fuels, and they want to replicate that so they can become like us.

So, we definitely have a miscommunication, because that's the opposite of my intention of my communications.

I think that we both accept that the Global Poor should have every opportunity to increase their lifestyles, and we should probably be belt-tightening to make it happen. That means changing our consumption patterns. The people who've done all the polluting should definitely be paying to create the innovations that allow the poor to not pollute while they mimic our lifestyles.

 

[El_Machinae]

Little reminder that China is already having one and a half the carbon emissions per capita of France, Italy or UK.

You're right, and thank you. I'd definitely allowed conflation between 'the West' and 'North America' in the conversation.

 

[Farm Boy]

I totally agree there is a lot more "low hanging fruit" in the US that the UK, below is a graph I found. More than half the cars sold in the US have more than a 3.2 litre engine? Considering it is possible for more than half to have less than 1.2 litre (India). Madness.

I think that includes all the fleet work pickup trucks, discounting heavy duty work semis and whatnot? But yes, SUVs are silly almost every time I think about them.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It strikes me as being very likely about transportation and density. France, Italy, and the UK are smaller countries that will find it easier to rely on things like rail that are much less carbon intensive than cars and trucks. Now, I'm of course not claiming that it is impossible for the US, Canada, and Australia to develop rail infrastructure but it is more expensive to do this when your population is spread out as these countries' populations are. I know for a fact that transportation is the largest category of emissions in the US.

It also means things like electric cars needing battery recharges every 200 miles atm are a lot more of a limitation.
Still, how much of your population lives in the relatively concentrated areas on the East and West coasts?
Develop good public transportation for them and you've made a big difference to your carbon emissons.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It strikes me as being very likely about transportation and density. France, Italy, and the UK are smaller countries that will find it easier to rely on things like rail that are much less carbon intensive than cars and trucks. Now, I'm of course not claiming that it is impossible for the US, Canada, and Australia to develop rail infrastructure but it is more expensive to do this when your population is spread out as these countries' populations are. I know for a fact that transportation is the largest category of emissions in the US.

Countries like the UK are already very densely populated.

It is not possible to develop mass transit without demolishing pre-existing infrastructure.

And there is a very high cost to that.

Less populated countries such as the USA have more space to work with for mass transit.

 

[Farm Boy]

More space with less population does not a recipe for mass transit make.

It's a call for efficient light transport, and freight.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that we both accept that the Global Poor should have every opportunity to increase their lifestyles, and we should probably be belt-tightening to make it happen. That means changing our consumption patterns. The people who've done all the polluting should definitely be paying to create the innovations that allow the poor to not pollute while they mimic our lifestyles.

And this will never happen in 100,000 years. The main function of the US state, for example, is to ensure that the US population can continue to consume five times its global share of resources. The idea that Americans will choose to reduce their own standard of living for the sake of people across the ocean getting a bit richer is just absurd.

It also means things like electric cars needing battery recharges every 200 miles atm are a lot more of a limitation.

It makes battery charging infrastructure more expensive for sure.

Still, how much of your population lives in the relatively concentrated areas on the East and West coasts?
Develop good public transportation for them and you've made a big difference to your carbon emissons.

We have reasonably good public transit in many coastal cities already, though of course it can be improved. The problem is the suburban rings that are almost completely car-dependent (I mean, where I live now there are many towns around mine, which is walkable, where you cannot do literally anything except by getting into a car).

We really need to completely reorient the country's physical infrastructure towards density and reducing car-dependence. It is a very big task, and that is part of why when "moderate" Senators claim Bernie Sanders' $3.5 trillion infrastructure plan is too expensive I become angry

edit: actually @Akka I am wondering how much of the difference between China and France/UK you mention is because, as Samson sort of pointed out, a lot of carbon-intensive industrial processes have in effect been outsourced to China. For example I believe China makes most of the world's cement? That's a pretty carbon-intensive process, as is making steel.

 

[El_Machinae]

That China produces carbon-intensive products for the globe isn't really France's problem. I don't think that there's anything that France can do that prevents this from being true that doesn't hurt China more than it hurts them (though I'm happy to be wrong). Well, outside of investing in alternatives that China can adopt.

It's China's footprint. If they imposed an internal carbon tax, and one that also applied to their exports, that would then allow France to pay for their share of the cost inputs when they purchase embedded emissions.

And this will never happen in 100,000 years. The main function of the US state, for example, is to ensure that the US population can continue to consume five times its global share of resources. The idea that Americans will choose to reduce their own standard of living for the sake of people across the ocean getting a bit richer is just absurd.

I definitely know that I'm a Cassandra here. I can't even convince people who're afraid of AGW to help in any significant way.

 

[Lexicus]

That China produces carbon-intensive products for the globe isn't really France's problem.

How not? It's everyone on Earth's problem.

Well, outside of investing in alternatives that China can adopt.

Figuring out how to make concrete without emitting a whole lot of carbon would be a good start.

 

[Samson]

It strikes me as being very likely about transportation and density. France, Italy, and the UK are smaller countries that will find it easier to rely on things like rail that are much less carbon intensive than cars and trucks. Now, I'm of course not claiming that it is impossible for the US, Canada, and Australia to develop rail infrastructure but it is more expensive to do this when your population is spread out as these countries' populations are. I know for a fact that transportation is the largest category of emissions in the US.

I bought this argument until I went to Finland. One of the most sparsely populated countries I have been to, just about the best rail network. There is no way that the population density of the north east bit of the US is too low for a decent mass transit rail system.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, it's definitely everyone on Earth's problem. I mean that there's nothing that France can do that isn't much more damaging to China than to France, in other words "Keeping the poor, poor". I'm just tracing the Euros, but China's footprint would be best dealt with using an internal carbon tax. Tariffs would be punishment for not doing so.

And yeah, there's a huge part of me that notices that R&D is going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting. The only way I can help on that front, in any tangible way, is to pivot spending. Once I pivot spending, I literally set up the reward infrastructure of the hustle to get my money.

 

[Farm Boy]

I bought this argument until I went to Finland. One of the most sparsely populated countries I have been to, just about the best rail network. There is no way that the population density of the north east bit of the US is too low for a decent mass transit rail system.

The megalopolis part?

 

[AmazonQueen]

[

We have reasonably good public transit in many coastal cities already, though of course it can be improved. The problem is the suburban rings that are almost completely car-dependent (I mean, where I live now there are many towns around mine, which is walkable, where you cannot do literally anything except by getting into a car).

We really need to completely reorient the country's physical infrastructure towards density and reducing car-dependence. It is a very big task, and that is part of why when "moderate" Senators claim Bernie Sanders' $3.5 trillion infrastructure plan is too expensive I become angry

Yes, the suburban raillinks European countries have need to be duplicated. Not that they have solved all the traffic congestion problems European countries have.
Still, solve your problems on the East Coast and West Coast, bring Texas and Florida back to sanity, and who cares what the loonies in the middle are doing.

 

[Lexicus]

I bought this argument until I went to Finland. One of the most sparsely populated countries I have been to, just about the best rail network. There is no way that the population density of the north east bit of the US is too low for a decent mass transit rail system.

To be clear, I'm hardly claiming that it is impossible to create a proper rail network in the US. But having less dense population makes a rail network more expensive. And my guess is that much of the difference in per capita emissions between the US and UK/France is because the US is so car-dependent, which is obviously not a simple function of density, but very much a political choice made by the US decades ago to have a car-dependent society.

 

[Joij21]

To be clear, I'm hardly claiming that it is impossible to create a proper rail network in the US.

We already have a proper rail network in the U.S., just nobody wants to ride the rails. They prefer cars short distance (because of the whole culture of personal freedom), and planes long distance (because they're faster).

Interstate buses are also a thing for places that aren't near any tracks, but again most Americans don't use them and instead pretend that this nation has no public transportation infrastructure when it very much does.

 

[Broken_Erika]

We already have a proper rail network in the U.S., just nobody wants to ride the rails. They prefer cars short distance (because of the whole culture of personal freedom), and planes long distance (because they're faster).

Interstate buses are also a thing for places that aren't near any tracks, but again most Americans don't use them and instead pretend that this nation has no public transportation infrastructure when it very much does.

Because cars are fun?

 

[Samson]

Because cars are fun?

They are fun, but they are also kill joys 'cos of drink driving.

 

[Lexicus]

We already have a proper rail network in the U.S., just nobody wants to ride the rails.

Nobody wants to ride the rails because we don't have a proper rail network.

They prefer cars short distance (because of the whole culture of personal freedom)

Yes, this is largely due to those political decisions I mentioned earlier, to consign the country to car-dependent infrastructure. To the extent that Americans prefer cars, I would submit that is mostly the result of their exposure to car marketing.

Interstate buses are also a thing for places that aren't near any tracks, but again most Americans don't use them and instead pretend that this nation has no public transportation infrastructure when it very much does.

The main reason people don't use the the public transportation is because cars are massively subsidized, both directly and indirectly, and because the public and mass-transit options the United States do have are completely underinvested jokes. The US could have a HSR network that would make train much faster than flying for most domestic travel, since flying has to include all the time spent navigating the security theater in airports. We just don't, partly because it would be very expensive (trillions of dollars, certainly) and partly because there are enormous vested political-economic interests in maintaining the fossil-fuel-intensive, car-heavy status quo.

Because cars are fun?

Cars are not fun. Driving on the highway is not fun unless there's very little to no traffic, which is virtually never the case on I-95 (though it was for a glorious few months last year).