Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtcactus | Hacker News Reader

I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money.

People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1]

This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...

View on HN

Those who benefited from the carbon emissions at the cost of others on a per capita basis need to take accountability of funneling the accrued capital to those who are suffering because of it.

https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2

If the argument is that we should now pay up for our ancestors not having the foresight to understand that industrializing during the 19th and early 20th century was going to have a negative impact on the environment, then I also expect other people to pay up for their ancestors during the 19th, early 20th, and even late 20th century not understanding that having a lot of children would have a negative impact on the environment.

I don't know why the lens you view this through is retributional, us vs them, or about taxing success of developed nations or rewarding people of a particular geography. Population growth is not an independent variable, it depends on availability of arable land, resources, education, urbanization, regulating structures/incidents. All human populations tend to have similar trends based on the above. Just because someone draws a line on the map around a lot of arable land doesn't mean it is overpopulated.

Climate change is going to effect every one even if those in developing nations suffer disproportionately. The quicker we transition our energy architecture away from non-renewables the better off everyone is. Those with surplus capital have the power to make this happen faster by helping those without. The alternative is choosing to suffer by delaying this with an us vs them narrative.

...are you attacking the babyboomers parents?

And more seriously the argument is that if we on the lottery and our ancestors did the damage before we understood it, then yes, we don't get to keep the benefits from other people and have _them_ foot the bill of avoiding further damage via stifled growth. That social contract doesn't work.

Nevermind that _right now_ per capital emissions and pollution and leads to similar policy implications. It's not just our ancestors overconsuming , it's us

The entire point is that developed nations went through their phase of intense pollution, came out the other side, and are now rich because of that history. Developing nations can't afford the luxury of clean industries, because they can barely afford the dirty ones!

The money is aimed at getting them "over the hump" in the least polluting manner possible.

It's like... helping up others after you've climbed the wall instead of pulling up the ladder behind you and blaming them for being lower than you.

Every 1$ that's extorted from the citizens of developed nations to give to most of the developing nations (India one of them), is going to build the single most productive industry regardless of how dirty it is. Giving money to these nations, only increases the pollution even more.

The system is totally inverted to the level of insanity. We should be rewarding developing nations that are decreasing their pollution levels, not rewarding developing nations that are polluting even more.

Nobody is "rewarding" polluting countries. The idea is to give poor nations money so that they can build clean energy infrastructure, as well as handle the damage already caused by climate change, for which the developed countries have much responsibility.

It seems like they are. Look at how migration works too. For some reason, moving humans from low CO2 regimes to high CO2 regimes is seen as "good" or "human rights" but also everyone must cut CO2. It's incoherent actions all around.

TFR is the big thing that is ignored. Look at 50-100 years out. Low TFR stable CO2 countries will solve themselves. One high TFR country that becomes less poor (produces more CO2) dominates future CO2 paths.

Considering that the average person in these so called developed countries pollute and consume far more than the average person in India and China, I don't see your point.

Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems.

Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis?

Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?

So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact?

It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.

The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst.

Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.

...by what theory of justice is CO2 per land area just? You didn't will your birthplace.

I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.

By the justice of keeping the planet from going above what its natural resources can replenish. Which, is actually the all excuse being given to take money from some people to give to other: saving the planet.

Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.

I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.

> they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China

since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?

It will tank their economies, which is why we’re paying them, basically,

what will happen is that we'll pay them and they will simply sell their labour to whoever else will buy it and still burn up the same resources/cause pollution/realease co2. It's like when we pay poachers not to kill elephants - they take the money and still sell the tusks.

This sounds like someone standing on a sinking ship asking why everyone onboard needs to be given their share of available tools to help plug the leaks, when those tools could be used to create surplus for those having tools.

The Indian government is doing a lot, and there have been serious reductions in pollution. They have also pivoted massively into renewable energy and have some of the biggest solar farms in the world which is more directly applicable to climate change. There are nine new nuclear reactors currently slated to be completed by 2027. It’s just such a large country with so many people without basic civic sense that it’s going to take a long time to make changes. On the bright side, it’s a very community based system as opposed to an individualistic one like the West so when those changes are eventually picked up, the cultural adherence is going to be very high.

Why is it baffling at all? Indians can’t spend as much money as say someone in the US. Shouldn’t the money go where it’s the most beneficial?

> I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money.

It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com