View Single Post
  #60  
Old September 13th 17, 02:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-11 00:33, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Explain to me what Paris actually does even if your religion is true,
given that it essentially puts NO cap on China, the largest producer
of greenhouse gasses, or on India?



India’s climate pledge, or Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC), aims to reduce the emission intensity of its GDP by 30-35% by
2030 and increase its renewable energy capacity five-fold by 2022, with
notable contributions from solar and wind. It aims to achieve 40% of its
installed electricity generating capacity from non-fossil (defined as
nuclear, hydropower and renewable) sources by 2022 and it proposes an
aggressive reforestation effort.


Yes, net emissions continue to grow. But relative to population or GDP,
will not exceed those of western nations such as USA.


The US produces a smaller share of world CO2 than it does of world
GDP. Nations like India and China, on the other hand, produce a much
larger share of world CO2 than they do of world GDP.


It is 1 planet with 5 billion people on it. The USA with its 300 million
doesn't have the "right" to generate more pollution per capita than
other nations. And yes, this means that you have to allow more
populated nations to pollute more than the USA which is all the more
important to get the USA (and other western nations) to lead by example
because western nation pollution ratiosn are what determine the caps for
developping nations. The lower the cap, the less their emissions can
continue to grow until they reach it.


So your view is that a failure to control population allows a country
to not have to control CO2 emissions.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn