Decarbonising transport

[Jub]

There are over 160 countries in the world that are considered to be developing countries. 13 of them managed to move on to developed economies since WW2. 9 countries have reached the Newly industrialised country status. ( Aka the level China is at today)

Those are not good odds for most developing countries.

YOU DON'T NEED TO EMULATE MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY TO HAVE A WORTHWHILE STANDARD OF LIVING!

Was the United States of the 1910s some impoverished hellhole worse than a current 3rd world nation? No, let alone the 50s or 60s which should be easily obtained almost by accident today. Unabashed greed by both the developing world and the developed world is the root cause of their issues, but at any time the victim should have been able to see how they were being exploited and made a choice to work towards self-sufficiency at an obtainable level of technology.

This is the point you are missing. We don't have the resources for every nation on the planet to industrialized on the back of cheap hydrocarbon fuel sources. That's a hard fact and the sooner we all realize that not everybody is going to get to live like the developed world has the better we'll all be.

[ray245]

YOU DON'T NEED TO EMULATE MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY TO HAVE A WORTHWHILE STANDARD OF LIVING!

Easy for someone who is already enjoying the benefits of modern western society to say. Tell that to someone from the developing world. Good luck with that.

Was the United States of the 1910s some impoverished hellhole worse than a current 3rd world nation? No, let alone the 50s or 60s which should be easily obtained almost by accident today. Unabashed greed by both the developing world and the developed world is the root cause of their issues, but at any time the victim should have been able to see how they were being exploited and made a choice to work towards self-sufficiency at an obtainable level of technology.

The US which had an entire continent to exploit even in 1910s? The US that benefited from the colonial system? The developing world tried autarky in the 1950s to 1970s. They got fucked over for trying to do that.

This is the point you are missing. We don't have the resources for every nation on the planet to industrialized on the back of cheap hydrocarbon fuel sources. That's a hard fact and the sooner we all realize that not everybody is going to get to live like the developed world has the better we'll all be.

I am not contesting that? I am pointing out the hypocrisy of somehow from a developed country telling that to someone from the developing world. It's nothing more than the same kind of talk the right-wing likes to use whenever someone brings up socialism.

[Jub]

Easy for someone who is already enjoying the benefits of modern western society to say. Tell that to someone from the developing world. Good luck with that.

It doesn't matter what they want, the reality is they're not going to get it and need to focus on what they can have.

The US which had an entire continent to exploit even in 1910s? The US that benefited from the colonial system? The developing world tried autarky in the 1950s to 1970s. They got fucked over for trying to do that.

It's almost like the cold war was a different time and that they can keep trying as many times as it takes... Bending the knee isn't and was never the only option.

I am not contesting that? I am pointing out the hypocrisy of somehow from a developed country telling that to someone from the developing world. It's nothing more than the same kind of talk the right-wing likes to use whenever someone brings up socialism.

So then we continue as we are and let them realize it the very fucking hard way as they die off to climate change and we turn the AC up and close our borders. That's what's coming. That's what they needed to plan for.

[ray245]

It doesn't matter what they want, the reality is they're not going to get it and need to focus on what they can have.

It matters in the real world because telling them they can't eat the cake is not going to make them eager to listen to you, and will actively push against any measures that causes them to have economic damage in the short-term.

It's almost like the cold war was a different time and that they can keep trying as many times as it takes... Bending the knee isn't and was never the only option.

Too bad history taught them bending the knee was the only option. Why else do you think a communist country like Vietnam is happily aiming to become China Mk 2.0?

So then we continue as we are and let them realize it the very fucking hard way as they die off to climate change and we turn the AC up and close our borders. That's what's coming. That's what they needed to plan for.

No, what we need to do is for the developed world to take the lead by bearing the economic cost first and to actively invest in the developing world to ensure we can reach a more equitable world. That is the only way to get the developing world to actively buy into the efforts of combating climate change. Anything else will just result in things carrying on exactly as they are, as the people of the developing world is accumulating as much wealth as they could in order to jump from the sinking ship.

Any dream of implementing the change that people in developed world are pushing for will not happen until the exact same bunch of people are willing to bear the economic cost of doing so.

[Jub]

It matters in the real world because telling them they can't eat the cake is not going to make them eager to listen to you, and will actively push against any measures that causes them to have economic damage in the short-term.

As opposed to the healthy functioning economies that they have now which exist at the sole whim of the nations exploiting them...

Too bad history taught them bending the knee was the only option.

They learned the wrong things...

No, what we need to do is for the developed world to take the lead by bearing the economic cost first and to actively invest in the developing world to ensure we can reach a more equitable world.

That's a laugh and isn't going to happen.

That is the only way to get the developing world to actively buy into the efforts of combating climate change.

They don't need to buy-in. We can dictate exactly what they can and cannot do because they're dependent on us for aid, medical supplies, tourism, etc. If we say that they should stop doing something they're too dependent to stop.

-----

This is my last post to you.

You seem to think that it's some requirement that the developed world take care of the developing world and the reality is that we absolutely don't have to do that. If it suits us, we can sit on our hands and watch the developing world burn because we unilaterally decided to take actions that damn them. It's not ideal, but it's likely and I'm just hoping we can at least attach something positive to this all too predictable behaviour.

You also ignore that alternate paths to sustainable conditions in these developing nations have always existed and make excuses for why those weren't implemented. Why can't we hold the governments in developing worlds accountable for the very predictable and preventable tragedies they've caused?

[ray245]

It matters in the real world because telling them they can't eat the cake is not going to make them eager to listen to you, and will actively push against any measures that causes them to have economic damage in the short-term.

As opposed to the healthy functioning economies that they have now which exist at the sole whim of the nations exploiting them...

Too bad history taught them bending the knee was the only option.

They learned the wrong things...

No, what we need to do is for the developed world to take the lead by bearing the economic cost first and to actively invest in the developing world to ensure we can reach a more equitable world.

That's a laugh and isn't going to happen.

That is the only way to get the developing world to actively buy into the efforts of combating climate change.

They don't need to buy-in. We can dictate exactly what they can and cannot do because they're dependent on us for aid, medical supplies, tourism, etc. If we say that they should stop doing something they're too dependent to stop.

-----

This is my last post to you.

You seem to think that it's some requirement that the developed world take care of the developing world and the reality is that we absolutely don't have to do that. If it suits us, we can sit on our hands and watch the developing world burn because we unilaterally decided to take actions that damn them. It's not ideal, but it's likely and I'm just hoping we can at least attach something positive to this all too predictable behaviour.

You also ignore that alternate paths to sustainable conditions in these developing nations have always existed and make excuses for why those weren't implemented. Why can't we hold the governments in developing worlds accountable for the very predictable and preventable tragedies they've caused?

So fuck the poor then? Good to hear advocates of environmentalism from the developed world are still stuck in the exact same colonialist mindset that created the situation in the first place.

Let's cut off aid if they don't listen to us in causing an entire economic sector to be disrupted and people to starve to death because they lost their jobs in a country with barely any social safety net. But don't you dare tell us to give you more aid for bearing the cost of economic disruption!

[Jub]

So fuck the poor then? Good to hear advocates of environmentalism from the developed world are still stuck in the exact same colonialist mindset that created the situation in the first place.

Let's cut off aid if they don't listen to us in causing an entire economic sector to be disrupted and people to starve to death because they lost their jobs in a country with barely any social safety net. But don't you dare tell us to give you more aid for bearing the cost of economic disruption!

Ray, given that you're not even making an attempt to read and understand the points of myself and others in this thread with regard to what developing nations NEED to be doing to take care of themselves, just shut the fuck up and shove that white horse you're on up your sanctimonious ass.

The fact is, even if we wanted to be compassionate, there simply isn't time left to change hearts and minds. We need to act yesterday and anything that delays us isn't something we can afford to worry about. That's going to mean a lot of dead people, but the thing you don't seem to understand is that this was all preventable if the developing nations played smarter rather than risking it all on greed. There were plays to be made, and they flubbed most of them and for all the bad things the developed world has done, that's not our fault or our problem.

Now, this is really the last post I'll make on this issue because you can't see past your own smug self-righteous attitude enough to understand that what's ideal isn't what we have time left to implement.

[ray245]

Ray, given that you're not even making an attempt to read and understand the points of myself and others in this thread with regard to what developing nations NEED to be doing to take care of themselves, just shut the fuck up and shove that white horse you're on up your sanctimonious ass.

The fact is, even if we wanted to be compassionate, there simply isn't time left to change hearts and minds. We need to act yesterday and anything that delays us isn't something we can afford to worry about. That's going to mean a lot of dead people, but the thing you don't seem to understand is that this was all preventable if the developing nations played smarter rather than risking it all on greed. There were plays to be made, and they flubbed most of them and for all the bad things the developed world has done, that's not our fault or our problem.

Now, this is really the last post I'll make on this issue because you can't see past your own smug self-righteous attitude enough to understand that what's ideal isn't what we have time left to implement.

I am finding what you are saying to be an excuse to avoid bearing any additional cost. We could have taken those actions AND bear additional economic costs to help the developing countries ease the transition. But any refusal to deal with that just shows you are only entirely focused on the well-being of the future ( mostly the developed's world future) at the expense of the people starving today.

I mean, who cares about a few starving people in the developing world that lost their livelihoods right? They are just poor uneducated and stupid peasants compared to the enlightened first-worlder like you.

[loomer]

Yeah, I'mma take the opportunity to emphasize that while I agree with the need to rapidly decrease carbon I'm not down with throwing people under the bus or with a model of QOL improvement that hinges on mass deployment of manufacturing to 'underdeveloped' nations to compensate for the loss of tourist revenues. Any just and equitable model of decarbonization and degrowth necessarily requires that the First World step up and do whatever is necessary to limit the suffering of the transitional century (a brief note: the transitional century is the time period that follows the rapid decarbonization necessary, while population levels are reduced and we adjust to more effective and appropriate technological bases for day-to-day tasks, and not the time period available to transition away from a carbon-centric economy), and bizarre models of paternalism and sneering condescension for other peoples is counterproductive.

[ray245]

Yeah, I'mma take the opportunity to emphasize that while I agree with the need to rapidly decrease carbon I'm not down with throwing people under the bus or with a model of QOL improvement that hinges on mass deployment of manufacturing to 'underdeveloped' nations to compensate for the loss of tourist revenues. Any just and equitable model of decarbonization and degrowth necessarily requires that the First World step up and do whatever is necessary to limit the suffering of the transitional century (a brief note: the transitional century is the time period that follows the rapid decarbonization necessary, while population levels are reduced and we adjust to more effective and appropriate technological bases for day-to-day tasks, and not the time period available to transition away from a carbon-centric economy), and bizarre models of paternalism and sneering condescension for other peoples is counterproductive.

Exactly. It's a false dilemma created by people from the developed world that just want to find an excuse to not do anything to help the developing world. It's a variant of the same kind of attitude that resulted in the West telling the Soviets to conduct economic-shock therapy in the 90s. They are based on two separate political philosophy, but the fundamental attitude is the same.

It is just developed world snobbery, and climate change just offer a way for people of such mentality to express it in a "for the greater good" kind of philosophy. Notice how there is a pattern of "we must do everything that is necessary, but we can't spare the money we would have been spending on tourism on the developing world" in their response? Or how "doing everything that is necessary" conviently exclude the people of the developed world having to reduce their lifestyle to that of the developing world?

Hiding behind the banner of socialism and environmentalism allows people to express their prejudice.

[K. A. Pital]

Apparently you don’t care about starving Third World people either, ray, because frequent and long-range flying is gonna fuck up their lives, making the equivalent of two Indias in terms of population a territory largely unbearable to live in, and that within the coming decades.

But hey, I guess you as a citizen of an oligarchic enclave of the worst type global capitalist offshores gonna lecture others from a moral high horse...

[ray245]

Apparently you don’t care about starving Third World people either, ray, because frequent and long-range flying is gonna fuck up their lives, making the equivalent of two Indias in terms of population a territory largely unbearable to live in, and that within the coming decades.

But hey, I guess you as a citizen of an oligarchic enclave of the worst type global capitalist offshores gonna lecture others from a moral high horse...

Who said I was advocating for a continuation of existing way of life? That is a assumption you are making about me, and not what I actually wrote. But hey, I guess it's nice to strawman people because you refuse to engage with my actual point, or you do not actually have a counter to my actual point.

You are so utterly stuck in the mindset of attacking an imaginary argument that you are not even reading what is actually being written.

[K. A. Pital]

And your argument is what? “Start thinking from a developing world perspective”? Well it is you who deny people like us any agency.

Per you, we should embrace tourism because it is not our jobs as Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese or whatever to build rockets, to design advanced machines, we should be servants to the rich once they decide to visit another Commodified Culture (TM) and find out how Spiritual (TM) they are.

Well fuck that. And fuck em. Fuck the horse they rode on,

Neither us nor any other free peoples are commodities.

[ray245]

And your argument is what? “Start thinking from a developing world perspective”? Well it is you who deny people like us any agency.

Per you, we should embrace tourism because it is not our jobs as Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese or whatever to build rockets, to design advanced machines, we should be servants to the rich once they decide to visit another Commodified Culture (TM) and find out how Spiritual (TM) they are.

Well fuck that. And fuck em. Fuck the horse they rode on,

Neither us nor any other free peoples are commodities.

Go back and check if I ever said we should embrace tourism. Go and find it. If you can't, stop strawmanning. At this point you aren't even interested in making any meaningful discussion, but to simply rage at some imaginary argument that I have never made.

[Tribble]

From what I've gathered so far everyone here agrees that decarbonising transport (starting with tourism) is a key goal to reducing the impact of climate change.

It looks to me like the main difference of opinion is how to affect that policy.

One view seems to be that the decarbonization of transport (in particular the tourist sector) needs to be planned out carefully, and done in a controlled matter so as to lessen the potential negative impacts during the transition. As well, all nations that are capable of assisting (and in particular the ones that were responsible for setting up the tourist industry in the first place) have a moral (if not legal) obligation to assist tourist dependant countries and help decarbonise their economies by providing the required equipment (including manufacturing capacity), training and funding to do so.

On the other hand, the other view seems to be to stop all tourism immediately. Well off countries (especially Western countries) should not assist others in transitioning to a carbon neutral economy (including those that are currently heavily dependant on tourism) as those countries would be better off doing so on their own, or in an alliance with each other.

Note again the goal either way being "decarbonising transport" not "try to have everyone live like Americans do".

Is that basically it?

[ray245]

From what I've gathered so far everyone here agrees that decarbonising transport (starting with tourism) is a key goal to reducing the impact of climate change.

It looks to me like the main difference of opinion is how to affect that policy.

One view seems to be that the decarbonization of transport (in particular the tourist sector) needs to be planned out carefully, and done in a controlled matter so as to lessen the potential negative impacts during the transition. As well, all nations that are capable of assisting (and in particular the ones that were responsible for setting up the tourist industry in the first place) have a moral (if not legal) obligation to assist tourist dependant countries and help decarbonise their economies by providing the required equipment (including manufacturing capacity), training and funding to do so.

On the other hand, the other view seems to be to stop all tourism immediately. Well off countries (especially Western countries) should not assist others in transitioning to a carbon neutral economy (including those that are currently heavily dependant on tourism) as those countries would be better off doing so on their own, or in an alliance with each other.

Note again the goal either way being "decarbonising transport" not "try to have everyone live like Americans do".

Is that basically it?

Yes, and thank you. I feel a few posters here has gotten so used to attacking capitalism in such a way that they are literally blind to seeing any criticisms to their arguments from any other perspective or angle.

[Jub]

On the other hand, the other view seems to be to stop all tourism immediately. Well off countries (especially Western countries) should not assist others in transitioning to a carbon neutral economy (including those that are currently heavily dependant on tourism) as those countries would be better off doing so on their own, or in an alliance with each other.

The argument isn't that we should not support them, it's that it's highly unlikely that the nations who have the resources to support the developing world through the transition will opt to do so. There's also a valid concern that the added political capital required to enact a large change with ongoing payments to the 3rd world may well lead to inaction due to politicians and voters balking at the cost or to it being decided that it costs less to support the tourism industry and thus no steps are taken away from cheap international flights in the first place.

The rest of the argument boils down to the simple fact that the rich and powerful have shown a consistent disregard for the wellbeing of the developed world and thus they need to work out in house solutions and alliances between equals to help them deal with impending changes.