A couple of things:

1) First, I agree that we should switch to solar power (for home use) and nuclear power (for industry) but as a means to develop resiliency in our energy usage.    I also believe that reducing emissions to combat pollution is a good goal.     However:

"It is undeniable that the climate is an extremely complicated system with many factors that we still do not quite understand, so such statements need to be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, the further we look back, the more uncertainty there is around the data. Robust evidence “only” spans back 800,000 years thanks to ice cores providing high-resolution records in the form of air bubbles trapped under the freezing snow.  "

"We use this record as a baseline to compare current events to, and the post-industrial upward trend in CO2 concentrations is evident. Unfortunately, the trend is recent enough that the results have yet to fully kick in. The time lag between CO2 emission and their pollution and warming effect is around 50 years, and whatever changes we observe now are only the tip of the iceberg. "

 (Source: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/)

The second point speaks to your point about people are always willing to tell you how to live your life without taking a look on how they live theirs.   The Kyoto protocols are often cited as a "success" yet, they show that China managed to be labeled as the same as Croatia and subsequently kicked off a growth in economy that will eclipse the US by 2028.  

In other words, climate change agreements across the world will be driven by economic realities, with some (the EU for example) taking their targets seriously, others talking about taking it seriously (the US), and others pretending they are just some poor country and shouldn't be expected to take it seriously (China). 

Sources: (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/cop3/l07a01.pdf) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55454146) (https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/collection/edgar)

Finally, I put faith in adaptation as a means to deal with global climate change.   I think we have too many economic realities that will prevent drastic changes to reduce global warming.

Source (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-adaptation-vs-mitigation-why-does-it-matter)

1 hour ago, SororitasSimp said:

Ah you're awfully brave, a lot of times I see discussions or thoughts about the global pollution it often heats up (haha).

 

 

Perhaps at other sites, but generally we try to keep things civil here even when we disagree. 

The Kyoto agreement tried to be "fair", but that fairness came with a lot of exceptions.   Those exceptions (esp for China) did not play well in the US.   So I agree with you, the US and China are the two biggest contributors to CO2 emissions (China overtook the US in 2015).   The US and China are also the two largest economies, so if both were to be taken on economically, then the economic damage from those sanctions may be larger than the ones due to the EU's attempt to meet their agreed cuts in emissions. 

(Sources are in my previous statement)

Addressing global climate change requires a global response.    The globe is hardly united in any terms (is immigration good or bad, etc.)  Second, the US has states that have larger economies that many countries in the EU, and some of those states are taking their stated goals seriously.  

Sources (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/10/24/icymi-california-poised-to-become-worlds-4th-biggest-economy/ )

So, a mitigation solution is the hardest solution to get to work, while adaption solution is much easier, but will favor those countries that can afford adaption. 

6 hours ago, SororitasSimp said:

Ah you're awfully brave, a lot of times I see discussions or thoughts about the global pollution it often heats up (haha).

 

IMO, the current state of the global pollution/warming thing, at least, in the West; is a joke. The US encourages smaller countries and the EU to commit economic suicide in a attempt to cut-down on carbon emissions yet they're right alongside the PRC in terms of polluting the world themselves. IMO, its feels like state virtue-signalling at the expense of the tax-payers of smaller nations. Let's take a look at the UK shall we?

 

- The goverment encouraged diesel, now they're encouraging electric cars instead (complete with heavy, toxic batteries, how long until they u-turn on electric too? - Also they don't even have enough electricity if everyone does go electric vehicle haha).

 

- Encouraging people to switch to heat-pumps (they don't work well & are more expensive to pay for, just the thing the UK citizens need with a reccesion dangerously close).

 

- Oxfordshire trial climate lockdowns (disputed by UK state media but the the gist is the council will be trialing a climate lockdown, keeping track of how many times people leave zones via their vehicle and fining them if its too many times).

 

- City Centre congestion bans (In some UK cities they have began banning vans/trucks and issuing fines to those who violate "green zones", RIP to local retailers located in city centres).

 

- On-land wind-farm spam (ruining the economic value of homes nearby, at the expense of the homeowners ofc; no consent needed).

 

So basically the UK is encouraging economic suicide (already close to a reccession) to its subjects in the name of fighting global pollution instead of calling out the US/PRC for their majority roles to global pollution.

 

I can, further down the line, certainly imagine the various states suggesting mandatory birth-control, de-populating bio-diverse areas, mandatory electricity blackouts (similar to the PRC).

 

The solution, at least in my mind is that if the EU, UK, misc smaller states; got together and sanctioned the US/PRC with various eco-milestones; it would give the two big states a economic reason to adopt eco-friendly sources. Perhaps even offering slightly better trade deals to the country which drops pollution the fastest? I can certainly imagine the US/PRC politicians wanting to beat their counterparts in such a competition, both for economics and national bragging rights.

 

Meh, that's my two cents.

4 hours ago, steelpanther24 said:

A couple of things:

1) First, I agree that we should switch to solar power (for home use) and nuclear power (for industry) but as a means to develop resiliency in our energy usage.    I also believe that reducing emissions to combat pollution is a good goal.     However:

"It is undeniable that the climate is an extremely complicated system with many factors that we still do not quite understand, so such statements need to be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, the further we look back, the more uncertainty there is around the data. Robust evidence “only” spans back 800,000 years thanks to ice cores providing high-resolution records in the form of air bubbles trapped under the freezing snow.  "

 

"We use this record as a baseline to compare current events to, and the post-industrial upward trend in CO2 concentrations is evident. Unfortunately, the trend is recent enough that the results have yet to fully kick in. The time lag between CO2 emission and their pollution and warming effect is around 50 years, and whatever changes we observe now are only the tip of the iceberg. "

 (Source: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/)

 

The second point speaks to your point about people are always willing to tell you how to live your life without taking a look on how they live theirs.   The Kyoto protocols are often cited as a "success" yet, they show that China managed to be labeled as the same as Croatia and subsequently kicked off a growth in economy that will eclipse the US by 2028.  

 

In other words, climate change agreements across the world will be driven by economic realities, with some (the EU for example) taking their targets seriously, others talking about taking it seriously (the US), and others pretending they are just some poor country and shouldn't be expected to take it seriously (China). 

 

Sources: (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/cop3/l07a01.pdf) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55454146) (https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/collection/edgar)

 

Finally, I put faith in adaptation as a means to deal with global climate change.   I think we have too many economic realities that will prevent drastic changes to reduce global warming.

 

Source (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-adaptation-vs-mitigation-why-does-it-matter)

 

4 hours ago, steelpanther24 said:

 

Perhaps at other sites, but generally we try to keep things civil here even when we disagree. 

 

The Kyoto agreement tried to be "fair", but that fairness came with a lot of exceptions.   Those exceptions (esp for China) did not play well in the US.   So I agree with you, the US and China are the two biggest contributors to CO2 emissions (China overtook the US in 2015).   The US and China are also the two largest economies, so if both were to be taken on economically, then the economic damage from those sanctions may be larger than the ones due to the EU's attempt to meet their agreed cuts in emissions. 

(Sources are in my previous statement)

 

Addressing global climate change requires a global response.    The globe is hardly united in any terms (is immigration good or bad, etc.)  Second, the US has states that have larger economies that many countries in the EU, and some of those states are taking their stated goals seriously.  

 

Sources (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/10/24/icymi-california-poised-to-become-worlds-4th-biggest-economy/ )

 

So, a mitigation solution is the hardest solution to get to work, while adaption solution is much easier, but will favor those countries that can afford adaption. 

> Very valid arguments, guys. Thank you, very much. Unfortunately I have no more kudos so, please take this one instead