Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
by dint of leading a privileged, first-world lifestyle, you are already in the top 5% of carbon contributors on the planet by default.
Erm no I'm not
which you seem to want to deny because 'my state uses wind power!'
But my state does use wind power, so when I flick on the AC there are no carbon emissions, my per capita emissions really are lower than most peoples.

So assuming I'm average, living a top 1% first world lifestyle, plenty of space, my emissions are ~14 tons/yr
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topic … %2Fperson.

The average korean has emissions of 12.7 tons/yr
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/south-korea

Does the average korean live a first world lifestyle? Do you think they'd trade a better life for fewer of them?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
Erm, Australia is the size of Europe
the size of your POLITY, your NATION, you fucking retard. why oh WHY are you obsessed with land mass? IT. IS. NOT. RELEVANT. in terms of total land mass/co2, both the USA and china, the world's biggest contributors to carbon emissions, are doing pretty well. FFS.

do you not understand that 14 tonnes/year is catastrophically large compared to the majority of the world's population? that's 3 times as much as even a british person, and we are far from great on this score. korea, too, should be aiming to bring down its per capita emissions drastically. the planet can't sustain many people eating up 10 or 14 tonnes of carbon a year (and, no, the answer is not 'great! let's get rid of most people').

now you're comparing your low-density living to south korea's high-density living. why are those the only alternatives? and how do you quantify people's happiness, anyway? to you high-density living in a cosmopolitan city is hell; to others the suburbs are hell. why bring preference and happiness into it? your average koreans' material wellbeing is relatively high now. their per capita stats are much higher than china's, for instance, who also have a satisfied populace who are confident their society is going in the right direction. the GDP/capita is not much lower than the UK's, and is above many european states like spain's. so why does it matter if they choose to live in highly energy efficient boxes, stacked on top of one another, whilst you want a wasteful place in the burbs?

i don't think population density is the really important factor in questions of energy use or quality of life.

besides, the choice isn't between high-energy-expenditure australian living and the slums of mumbai. there are many models of living. considering that the only way to achieve yours on a global scale involves 'killing off most of the world's population', i dare say we shouldn't be too sniffy about countries whose model of urban living differs from your own western-suburban one. korea's future projected standard of living doesn't involve mandatory genocide, which is probably in its favour.

the majority of the people on this planet live in nothing like a first-world state of luxury. so why do you continually lecture people whilst surfing on a giant swell of privilege yourself? the fact is your country could be doing much, much better on almost every front. and yet the elected government is chockfull of climate-change skeptics and you're ploughing ahead with more fossil-fuel expansion. this is about much more than the state of SA, dilbert (and i would still argue that your general quality-of-life is owed to much more than just your local state; it's the national economy/prosperity/growth that you benefit from, too). the world wouldn't ever fix its climate change issues if it conveniently divided itself into 1.5 million people blocs.

you saying 'well my small state does use wind power so i'm alright' doesn't even account for 95% of your own countrymen. like how convenient and selective do you want to be? climate change has to be tackled on an international level, between nations; you want to make it a matter of personal virtue-signalling and tiny states. that is not. going. to. cut. it.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 04:28:37)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
OK Why don't you sort out your fellow koreans then we'll talk.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
my fellow koreans? you won't take responsibility for your own elected government LMAO. i have zero input to the way koreans organize their political process and energy goals. you seem to find it convenient to only talk about a state of 1.7 million people, as if what happens in NSW or your nation's parliament happens on another planet.

and, once again, i have never once denied that any of the top-emitting nations in the world have work to do. korea has a lot of work to do. but so does australia, which you seem to want to deny. korea's current consumption is at least understandable, considering their rapid speed of development and the fact that they've only even had any worthwhile industry to speak of for all of about 40 years. australia's cynical dependency on fossil-fuel exports, however, is a little harder to explain. especially considering that you're hucking the stuff to china, your supposed mortal enemies. odd, isn't it?

but hey, your household emissions are low and your state has a windfarm. as for the rest of the world? they should all stop breeding. hahahahah good job chap.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 05:30:27)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Erm Australia is well on track, we can be carbon zero quite easily, other states just need to copy SA and Tasmania.

If stopping coal exports means Chinese freeze to death in winter and you and your fellow Koreans burn up in summer thats OK with me if it brings down my personal per capita emissions.

This should also solve the asian breeding problem.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
all of east asia
has
lower
reproduction
rates
than
australia

the serious decline in their birth-rate and the impending demographic implosion are constant topics of political and media discussion in korea/japan. china had a one child policy for decades ffs. what 'breeding problem'? how are you so hilariously ignorant of the world around you? 'racist, insular monocultures' that 'overbreed'. LMAO.

read a fucking book.

glad that you've finally conceded the point that all your stressing of 'individual responsibility' and 'consumer choice' means diddly fucking squat so long as you reside in a world-leading carbon emitter. glad also that you're recognising the importance of state- and nation-level decarbonisation drives. it's almost as if my points about the need for systemic top-down change has finally gotten through. stressing the need to avoid tourist holidays and going on and on about your diet is akin to rearranging the flower bouquets on a coffin on its way to the incinerator.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 19:31:12)

uziq
Member
+492|3423
also australia was supposed to turn off china's coal supply. it was part of the general political fracas over the last year, remember? that's why i said it's 'funny' that you're still trading, furtively, with your supposed mortal enemies. i guess greed really does over-ride political principle for the australian elite. coal imports to china were supposed to be banned for australian companies ... and yet the supply continues by hook or by crook.

i wouldn't mind if you DID turn off their supply. it's getting cold in china now and they're worried about winter supplies (hence the bending over australian trade). china keeping warm in winter = horrendous air quality on the korean peninsula. all the emissions and shit travels eastwards on the wind over the yellow sea.

https://preview.redd.it/r7bipiebunx71.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b154a7ca8b19209968ef84d7cc9f3d61e36dbc9d

in summer, korea has occasional days of 400-500ppm+ air due to yellow sand and particulates blowing over from the gobi desert and inland regions. again due to over-farming, excess water demand, and general desertification. fun.

people here joke that korea is japan's air filter, and japan is korea's wave breaker. and naturally, koreans themselves love to blame china for all of their shitty air quality despite the fact that korea is coal-dependent too (you won't find me defending them on any score here; just, again, to point out that your representations of australia as some green paradise are dishonest in the extreme).

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 19:52:35)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Ha ha enjoy choking on our coal dust.

We need to continue selling to China so we have the money to buy nuclear submarines - to protect us from China.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
everyone wears high-quality triple-filter korean facemasks anyway. they were a norm before the pandemic for just such a reason.

i know they're not particularly effective against fine particulates and industrial pollutants, but it does make somewhat of a difference.

and, yes, i wouldn't raise kids here or plan on staying for 5+ years for just that reason. i've never smoked a single cigarette in my life and i don't particularly relish sucking down the exhausts of china's factories each day.

seoul city itself has tonnes of air quality displays. they're as common as traffic lights here. most people just keep their windows closed and exercise indoors on particularly bad days. here's a neat (and depressing) fact: namsan tower, the landmark in the very centre of the old city, is actually colour coded to reflect the air quality. seoulites are literally always conscious of it. it's one of the reasons why i said they are more likely to act on climate change: it's hard to be a climate change skeptic when you live in china's downdraft.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fNKgzXHSwtQj9v7bFOwArp-aOPM8a7LEvciRB4jZOjFPfxRlsdEFJp4pZsRdrnZCc8fKmHLDnMxqDkZXRE88PytGEOpL5JI45RA=w1200-h630-rj-pp-e365

https://img.freepik.com/free-photo/seoul-city-skyline-n-seoul-tower-south-korea_174052-21.jpg?size=626&ext=jpg

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 20:12:57)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Apparently my state is awesome.

Sorry for the formatting, probably the work of some hipster.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/ … /100382998

Making fun of Adelaide might be a national pastime, but South Australians have more to gloat about than posh accents and never being convicts.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
China telling their people to prepare for winter was ominous.

On the one hand it isn't the average Chinese citizen's fault their government is untrustworthy and obnoxious. Anything bad happens to China and it will fall on the most vulnerable. That said, some humility from China regarding COVID and other things would be nice. The country is acting like the U.S. after we invaded Iraq. China is in desperate need of a humbling.

And it is not just me speaking as an American...the countries around China hate it too.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6c8sW0do84s/VYqgvre9VpI/AAAAAAAAfkU/wXXTZoQLHxo/s1600/Favorability+of+U.S.+and+China+by+country.jpg

"America Is the Only Country That Went from Barbarism to Decadence Without Civilization In Between"

China went from second rate nation to reviled superpower without a global icon phase.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+492|3423

Dilbert_X wrote:

Apparently my state is awesome.

Sorry for the formatting, probably the work of some hipster.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/ … /100382998

Making fun of Adelaide might be a national pastime, but South Australians have more to gloat about than posh accents and never being convicts.
once again, though, it’s 1.7 million people. we are talking about global warming and you’re talking about a polity the size of a small city. my neighbourhood has 575,000 people in it.

australia is a very small nation and it shouldn’t be hard to get a first-world nation of your size and wealth up to impeccable green standards. we’re not urging a developing country, here: we’re talking one of the most luxurious places on earth.

even 25 million people is only 0.33% of the global number. this isn’t an advert for widespread eugenics: it means global warming is a more complex problem than you ordinarily admit. you seem to think sorting your plastics and taking your power from a green grid has your hands dusted of the issue. not so.
uziq
Member
+492|3423
@ macbeth, i talk to a chinese girl currently studying in chongqing a lot. she sends me daily messages. what is happening in the heartlands of that country is crazy.

university students have mandatory ideology lessons and CCP lectures almost every week. there are quizzes and special events about it. military parades and service for young men, of course, but in such a way that it overlaps with college, much like american football does in the US.

she sent me a photo from inside her classroom yesterday. some CCP functionary was quizzing the class on matters of maoist doctrine. she said that he was discussing with some of the other students ‘taking back taiwan’. they are openly discussing it as a matter of fact. and none of the students really even question the stuff. they’re fully programmed, either out of wariness and exhaustion or willing patriotism, i don’t know.

i’ll post some pictures of our chat logs if you want.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-06 00:05:54)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Apparently my state is awesome.

Sorry for the formatting, probably the work of some hipster.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/ … /100382998

Making fun of Adelaide might be a national pastime, but South Australians have more to gloat about than posh accents and never being convicts.
once again, though, it’s 1.7 million people. we are talking about global warming and you’re talking about a polity the size of a small city. my neighbourhood has 575,000 people in it.

australia is a very small nation and it shouldn’t be hard to get a first-world nation of your size and wealth up to impeccable green standards. we’re not urging a developing country, here: we’re talking one of the most luxurious places on earth.

even 25 million people is only 0.33% of the global number. this isn’t an advert for widespread eugenics: it means global warming is a more complex problem than you ordinarily admit. you seem to think sorting your plastics and taking your power from a green grid has your hands dusted of the issue. not so.
Why? Because its 'small' ?

Should be a doddle to get your neighbourhood to zero carbon then.

No wait, resources available for expenditure are also per capita, size is irrelevant.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
when i say 'small' i always mean in terms of people and organization, not land mass. i have never spoken about land mass.

and why is it easier for australia? because you're an advanced economy and you're not developing? it's a little bit harder to tell developing nations to stop using coal when their existing industry is nil and 3/4s of their population are in crushing agrarian poverty, isn't it?

of course rich nations with huge purses and advanced tertiary/quarternary sector economies can pivot to green energy much easier. why does this need to be explained to you? you can spend billions on nuclear submarines but you're on a par with a developing country struggling to feed/warm its population when it comes to clean energy? give over.
uziq
Member
+492|3423
Richest 1% will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030, while poorest 50% will release one tonne of CO2 a year

In keeping with the Paris climate goals, every person on Earth needs to reduce their CO2 emissions to an average of 2.3 tonnes by 2030, about half the average of today.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ting-limit

so even your 'superb hipster' state is over 3x the target at present. the UK is aroundabout the global average (not the most useful stat, i know).

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 23:26:44)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

every person on Earth needs to reduce their CO2 emissions to an average of 2.3 tonnes by 2030, about half the average of today.
Or we could cut the population in half and enjoy exactly the same standard of living, better even if we pivot to green energy.

Do Elijah, Sanjeet and Hakim really need to each father six kids?
Aren't they basically robbing me if they do?

Overbreeding is as big an insult as excessive individual consumption.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-11-05 00:43:24)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
why is it elijah, sanjeet and hakim who need to sacrifice their children, considering their collective carbon footprint is way below average?

it's the darling hermoines, brads and joneses who are driving the world to destruction, derp.

your weird racist eugenicist theories are beneath comment, really. get a life.
Larssen
Member
+99|1858
Anyone rly think those targets are still achievable. It's almost 2022 and we're not exactly close to the fabled net zero future.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

why is it elijah, sanjeet and hakim who need to sacrifice their children, considering their collective carbon footprint is way below average?

it's the darling hermoines, brads and joneses who are driving the world to destruction, derp.

your weird racist eugenicist theories are beneath comment, really. get a life.
Why do you want a future with billions of extra people packed together all scrabbling in the dirt for a miserable life?

Your socio-racial misotopia paradise is whats weird.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Anyone rly think those targets are still achievable. It's almost 2022 and we're not exactly close to the fabled net zero future.
China, America and Russia will do nothing, really we're wasting our time.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

why is it elijah, sanjeet and hakim who need to sacrifice their children, considering their collective carbon footprint is way below average?

it's the darling hermoines, brads and joneses who are driving the world to destruction, derp.

your weird racist eugenicist theories are beneath comment, really. get a life.
Why do you want a future with billions of extra people packed together all scrabbling in the dirt for a miserable life?

Your socio-racial misotopia paradise is whats weird.
what's a 'misotopia'? does it involve delicious soup?

why are you incapable of understanding the simple concept of population growth being in an inverse relation to economic development?

overpopulation isn't the problem facing the planet today. it's huge amounts of energy expenditure/consumption by a tiny % of the population that is endangering life on the planet. read it again: the bottom 50% of people alive on this planet today consume less than a tonne of co2/year. so, logically, if you want to 'get rid of half of the people on the planet', we should start at the top, right? off you go, then. eat the barrel and suck down a round, like a good honourable gentleman.

the poor and endangered nations on the planet certainly don't want to pollute or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. they all banded together at cop26 to try and make their voices be heard over the head capitalists who preside over the global order.

sorry you don't have the intellectual courage to look a problem in the face.

dilbert: you are so selfish! you take planes to places just so you can gawp at things. what an odious human being!
also dilbert: all of the poor and non-white people on this planet should die so that i can maintain my beach-driving suburban lifestyle.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-05 04:29:38)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

uziq wrote:

@ macbeth, i talk to a chinese girl currently studying in chongqing a lot. she sends me daily messages. what is happening in the heartlands of that country are crazy.

university students have mandatory ideology lessons and CCP lectures almost every week. there are quizzes and special events about it. military parades and service for young men, of course, but in such a way that it overlaps with college, much like american football does in the US.

she sent me a photo from inside her classroom yesterday. some CCP functionary was quizzing the class on matters of maoist doctrine. she said that he was discussing with some of the other students ‘taking back taiwan’. they are openly discussing it as a matter of fact. and none of the students really even question the stuff. they’re fully programmed, either out of wariness and exhaustion or willing patriotism, i don’t know.

i’ll post some pictures of our chat logs if you want.
It's probably good that America has this "pick your own adventure" ideological thing going. All that ideological training they put their people through creates psychic energy that has to go someplace to dissipate. Eventually it will all turn inward unless you have some external wins to please people.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

overpopulation isn't the problem facing the planet today. it's huge amounts of energy expenditure/consumption by a tiny % of the population that is endangering life on the planet. read it again: the bottom 50% of people alive on this planet today consume less than a tonne of co2/year. so, logically, if you want to 'get rid of half of the people on the planet', we should start at the top, right? off you go, then. eat the barrel and suck down a round, like a good honourable gentleman.
Population and CO2 per capita are of course intertwined - its how we get to total CO2.

You and I aren't so much in the top 1% as in the middle of the top 20-30%, the top 1% contribute a whole lot less in total than this group.

https://aqalgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2018-Worldwide-CO2-Emissions-by-region-per-capita-ZOOM.png

Obviously Americans need to scale back and become more efficient, the average Chinese is already well above average, Indians are catching up fast, these are the big hitters,.
Crimping the Chinese and Indian populations would have much more impact than me going net -100%.

But people like you are obsessed with having an overpopulated planet for some reason, and expect technologists to deliver a solution - a solution which will then be negated by more population.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+492|3423
i mean, there are really 2 ways of interpreting that graph.

one is 'wow, a really tiny percentage of the world's population are putting out a helluva lot of co2 emissions, relative to their population size'. the other is 'oh, okay, although most of the largest population groups on the planet are way below the global average, we in fact need to kill off half their population or enact strict birth control regimes on their populations'.

here is another interesting graph, this time of the g20 and which is missing australia, but still: a germane comparison between first-world post-industrial nations and developing/recently developed countries like south korea, according to your preferred measure of 'personal choice' and 'individual lifestyles':

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDrD8yCWUAMjDju?format=png&name=900x900

the problem, as you can see, is not people with too many children or of people overpopulating: it's the fact that, the richer you are, the more you consume and the worse your contributions. even within nationalities, it's clear that the rich (to say nothing of the superrich) are burning up fossil fuels at a rate far in excess of even their fellow citizens. to put it another way, and in a way i know you'll like, we need to be more intersectional in this analysis. your average brit who goes on a package holiday with their sprogs to marbella once every 3 years is not in the same ballpark as your City CEO or high-flyer. and your average korean consumes less than an average european (and much way less, one can assume, than an average aussie).

the above graph also itemises many sociological facts which are salient to this discussion, i think. such as countries with high rates of single-home occupancy, which consume an incredibly higher amount of energy and emissions, versus multi-generational homes and large family environments. can you really blame a country for having 'too large a population' when, for instance, south and east asian cultures typically live together in large family households? the low birthrate in the west is great, and all, but people living alone in northern europe are probably consuming a lot more power/person. also the fact that countries like the US, with ridiculously poor infrastructure and standards of public transport, as well as horrendous urban planning necessitating individual transport to get anywhere, means that even the lower socioeconomic brackets still consume an astronomical amount of energy/person.

it's funny how dramatically different the per capita picture is when you zoom out from your preferred obsession of household consumption to a general per capita average, i.e. when you add industrial, commercial, agricultural, etc, usage back into the picture. compare the UK's standing in the above/below.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDsc8kOVcAY3EGv?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDrF56KWEAEMJAM?format=jpg&name=small

it's clear that focussing exclusively on household budgets or personal carbon footprints is missing the true picture, and each nation's consequent responsibility, by a country mile. and your laughable understanding of population growth/decline and demographics isn't compensating for your lack of analysis, either. many of the populations which you most volubly point the finger at are already in decline, and will continue to do so into the future. the most pressing and proximate issues facing us today are not the projected population growth of africa, dilbert (where most of the new births in the next century will occur, by quite a margin). their collective carbon contribution is nonexistent.

it's really a poor show to punch downwards on specific individuals in the west or to blanket blame 'overbreeding races'. it's clear that we need actual top-down policy targeting big business, heavy industry and, if you want to make it a matter of household budgets, the super-rich and rich. that's the most effective and immediate means. average middle-class consumers pointing the fingers at one another and exchanging barbed remarks about their flying habits or diets is not going to fix anything.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-09 02:27:01)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard