Over the past century, the US has produced more cumulative carbon emissions than any other country, and it's not even close.
China is in the middle of a massive expansion in wind, solar, and electric vehicles. The US is burning even more coal to support AI, and has gutted much of its federal emission reduction efforts.
This changed on the last decade or so. It's close now.
Of course, China has 5 times more people than the US, so they get a little bit of leeway. But they are close, and their emissions are growing.
That said, yes, they are investing more than anybody else. And they are improving the technology we need more than anybody else. People talking about military intervention are full of shit, but we could use some diplomatic collaboration.
I know nothing about it. I have read comments on this very comments section, with references, that say China's emissions are not growing. This is what makes this subject so hard for the average numbskull like me, so much misinformation.
The EU has applied tariffs for climate reasons with the carbon border adjustment. The idea is for a country to have domestic climate standards, and then apply tariffs on importers who import from countries that don't meet those standards. It's a straightforward application of tariffs to ensure domestic manufacturers aren't undercut by foreign rivals that aren't required to meet the same standards and redirect importers to sources that do meet standards or at least come closer.
Carbon tax at home and carbon tariffs abroad is the only real economically sound strategy to nudge the economy towards emitting less.
And yes, that does likely mean taxing Chinese imports in the short term. The Chinese leadership does understand the risks of climate change as well or better than many other countries and is already pursuing enormous amounts of clean energy and emission standards, so I'd not expect the tariffs on Chinese imports to last long on an environmental or carbon basis.
I don't see why war is necessary. There could be something like the Space Race, where nations flex their technological skills at producing solutions to environmental problems.
Edit: Individuals do not build coal power plants, utilities (and therefore, governments) do. India and China are continuing to build fossil fuel power generation. Global warming does not care about 'fairness', global warming cares about co2 PPM in the atmosphere. When we address climate change, we have to do so at the government level, or we mine as well not bother.
The whole idea that we should look at 'emissions per capita' or 'historical emissions' in the interest of fairness is simply giving a license to governments to kill genuinely poor people in the third world.
There is literally no charitable interpretation of this point.
How much of a problem any individuals CO2 emissions are is completely decoupled from what nation they live in, or how many people live in that nation specifically.
If you hypothetically split up Asia or the US into 100 smaller countries then local emissions are not suddenly more (or less) of a problem than the are now (duh).
And of course more people have more of an influence on global outcomes.
This whole argument makes about as much sense as demanding that black people in Europe should not pay any income tax, because the total tax income from black people in Europe is very low, and "national budget does not care about per capita".
This is so disingenuous. Individuals do not build coal power plants, utilities (and therefore, governments) do. India and China are continuing to build fossil fuel power generation. Global warming does not care about 'fairness', global warming cares about co2 PPM in the atmosphere. When we address climate change, we have to do so at the government level, or we mine as well not bother.
The whole idea that we should look at 'emissions per capita' or 'historical emissions' in the interest of fairness is simply giving a license to governments to kill genuinely poor people in the third world.
> India and China are continuing to build fossil fuel power generation
Power plants are not built for specific national governments, they are built because individual people need and use the energy. More people => more powerplants (number of governments is completely irrelevant, this is purely a per-capita thing).
> When we address climate change, we have to do so at the government level
Yes. For example by setting somewhat coherent CO2/capita emission targets.
> Global warming does not care about 'fairness'
Irrelevant, because anyone affected does.
If you want a global reduction in emissions, how would you ever convince a poorer nation (like India) to change anything while your own citizens are jet-travelling around the globe multiple times per year?
It is obviously much easier and more effective to reduce emissions by limiting a family to a single cruise vacation per year (or only two cars) than to convince 10 rice farmers to stop firing their oven for heat during winter...
If rich nations can not get their emissions even close to a sustainable level, why would any developing nation sacrifice growth, wealth or anything, really, to make the attempt?
I never said rich nations shouldn't cut their emissions. If I were king, I'd enact a heavy carbon tax, and I'd tell every country I traded with that they could either do the same, or face tariffs and sanctions weighted by emissions that would have basically the same effect on their economy. I'd also insist that the institute the same tariffs and sanctions on economies they trade with.
All of a sudden, you'd have the world's short term self interest aligned with solving the long term problem.
> Global warming does not care about 'fairness', global warming cares about co2 PPM in the atmosphere. When we address climate change, we have to do so at the government level, or we mine as well not bother.
That is why per capita is the correct measure.
The atmosphere is very good at mixing CO2 so a given amount of emissions anywhere has the same impact anywhere as the same amount of emissions from anywhere else.
Whatever we decide the limit on atmospheric CO2 needs to be to address warming needs to be converted into a quota for each country, since enforcement has to be done at the country level.
We can't just take the total and divide it by the number of countries. That would mean that Vatican City would have the same quota as the US. Regionally it would mean that the EU would have 27 times the quota of the US.
The only sensible initial allocation is to divide the total allowed by the world population, and assign each individuals share to whatever country has the power to regulate them.
And it also doesn’t care about arbitrary country boundaries. But it is affected by total emissions, and per-capita measurements is one fair way to judge how a country is doing
I got a car loan at a 8% rate right out of undergrad… you got hosed, maybe you were in a hyperinflationary environment though.
I bet they sent you a letter telling you it was your lack of credit history. You didn’t find one of the many credit providers and have them fight to give you the best rate?
Credit is an extremely elementary thing to grok in a day or so
Aurelius systems is a newly funded directed energy startup building counter-drone laser guns. We're hiring for a series of founding engineers - working in person in pac heights, San Francisco.
If you love lasers and this country please reach out. Hires will receive a copy of meditations and an electric scooter to join our laser scooter gang in SF.
The market is pushing for all SUVs, more than 70% of new cars sold are SUVs or Trucks. The car companies don't decide to make all SUVs, the consumer decided they only wanted those vehicles and the car companies obliged.
Well, when you haven't updated your sedan in 6 years but still charge the same price as when it first released, it's easy to claim "lack of customer demand".
Look around you when driving. If you're in a small car like me, vw golf, you realize how out of place you are. Every vehicle behind me feels like they have their high beams on because their car is so much higher off the ground.
I love the efficiency of my small car, but the lack of safety to those outside of the vehicle is a huge concern. One can buy a 2ton vehicle off the lot today that can do 0-60 in 3.0, the hummer ev. I really don't feel safe in a small car anymore.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's a race to get bigger and beefier cars . Unless we put in regulations, it's only going to get worse. No wonder pedestrian deaths have risen.
There's pretty significant tax exemptions on SUVs [1] - so a big part of that "consumer choice guiding the market" is actually "the government's choice guiding the consumer's choice, guiding the market".
Given the size of automotive lobbying in the USA, you could reasonably extend that to "the automotive lobby groups guiding the government's choice, guiding the consumer's choice, guiding the market".
I'd prefer to see people facing significant criminal charges because they hit and killed someone with their car. Pretty sure we don't need to bother with harsher taxes considering we already have these laws on the books. Something like "negligent manslaughter" or whatever.
That's because no one makes a sub $35k car anymore. They have pushed all options to luxury and are not meeting the demand of the market, so you buy what you can get.
If only I could find one on the local car lots that where under that price... Instead the local car dealers all have those cars tricked out, then it becomes a question, pay for that with all the bells and whistles (which I don't want) or buy the SUV that is the same price that they do have on the lot?
To indulge a tangent, which attribute would you say is determinative for an “American car”? Is it just where the corporation is registered? That’s probably international across the board, after all Jeeps are Chryslers are Fiats are Peugeots are all Stellantis and are headquartered in the Netherlands by way of France, Italy, and America. I suppose Ford still resembles its original American identity, even if they’d really like to build more cars in Mexico. General Motors is still mostly an American brand, but it also sold Hummer to a Chinese company, and has several platforms that are shared with European and Asian brands. If it’s simply where the board members hold meetings, then I’m not too keen on buying American for its own sake, but the broader point is, what the hell even is an American car anymore?
I would argue the location of its manufacture is probably the most significant factor, as it contributes the most towards what I think of people commonly think of as buying “American”—things like supporting the assembly line workers, and as much as possible keeping the economic activities surrounding its production domestic. To that end, my BMW 3-series was built in South Carolina, and would then rank as an American car. But that notion is pretty absurd to my sensibilities, so maybe it’s more of a cultural idea? So American cars could be made anywhere, as long as they’re huge, overpowered, and are a Ford F-150. By that logic, I’d call a Jeep Wrangler American, but probably not the Wagoneer (see: Range Rover), and certainly not the Compass (see: pre-Genesis Hyundai). This definition seems far too ambiguous and subjective.
Ultimately, I think globalization has effectively ended the whole idea of nationalistic car manufacturing. Like a lot of now-vestigial cultural institutions, the modern world economy has consumed these old modes of thought, and left them to be wielded as marketing by advertising agencies who eagerly leverage our nostalgia and cultural identities to craft the illusion that these brands still represent the American Way®.
I dislike overweight behemoths as much as any cyclist of pedestrian would, but neither masculinity or individualism have much to do with it. Arguably cycling is more individualistic than driving an automobile. As for masculinity, if you were saying that about muscle cars, yeah, ok; maybe -afterall men get accused of buying those to compensate for lost masculinity. But anyway women like SUVs as much as men (women buy more SUVs, men buy more light trucks). No surprise they’re called hausfrauenpanzer.
Let's say collectivism is the opposite of individualism, so if I was to take a collectivist mindset about my car choice something I might consider would be making sure I can see the other people in my community well while driving (because cars are dangerous) and I don't want to hurt someone. I'd argue that the opposite of that choice would be to buy a larger vehicle which makes me more safe at the expense of other people, by making them harder to see and hurting people more because of vehicle mass.
As for masculinity, anyone regardless of their gender can do stereotypically masculine or feminine things. For example men who do drag are generally dressing in a more classical feminine style. In the barbie movie, when the Kens took over they were pictured with a big hummer EV, not any of the other smaller cars we saw in the movie.
Macho is driving 120+ in 1000 or 1200cc Honda, BMW or Ducati, or other times a driving a cambered small car down the road at high speed as well. Or it could be going down the middle of O'Shaughnessy on a skateboard.
Fem is getting behind a 5000lb SUV. So it's no surprise women and families choose SUVs.
Individualism could be getting up early to bike all the way to Mt Tam, or getting up early to catch the surf. Collectivism might be taking the family out to a BBQ at the park, or going to the supermarket and doing the grocery shopping for the fam.
Money supply is a zero sum game... If you only view the game instantaneously.
Wealth grows, production increases the wealth of everyone around you. If a few people hoard all of the money, they're not putting that money to useful work and those that do do this will make all the returns (which is why people don't really horde money, it's all being used in the form of investments in businesses).
As a previous M7 FTMBA student who dropped out halfway through to do a startup, the real MBA is starting a company. Venture, cash flow/lifestyle or otherwise.
There have been a few companies advertising something like this (e.g., oneday.io) where you build a startup and earn an accredited professional MBA along the way.
Signal v noise ratio so much higher in hardware, nobody performatively studies mechanical engineering to make $60k in ohio.
reply