You will never offend me. Even if you decide to publicly write me off. Please don't worry about that.
I think you bring up a number of valid points, and voice, what I believe, are common frustrations. You are certainly not alone in where you stand, and not unreasonable in the least. If I may, I'd like to reply to some of your points. I hope that's okay.
The last thing I want to do is offend anyone. You show a chart, then you explain it and you did so elegantly. But you are doing the same thing here that is done by even the climate change scientist. Thinking through your own prism of reality and not taken in the real truth and reason as to why all that is a total waste of time. Take a look at the entire world, I mean everywhere all at once. How many poor people live in impoverished conditions that you cannot reach with the message of Climate Change, no matter how we try. I am talking about the impoverished in China, the Middle East, South America, Indonesia, and other Asian countries, and the list goes on. You, me, and all the climate scientists in the world under a combined effort can't reach these people. They will continue to live their lives polluting the world around them by burning and eating whatever they have available. Climate change can only be affected by people living in places where people have the means to do something about changing their lifestyles, and that is not enough, and never will be because simply we are the minority of the world's population.
If I am understanding you correctly here, and please correct me if I am wrong at any point my interpretations, you are concerned about the impact of population size and poverty. These are valid concerns. Hans Rosling addressed some of these concerns in
his many TED talks. He made the point that people living in poverty, particularly in many of the areas you listed, contribute vastly less to global carbon in puts. And he was right about that. However, he did fail to address efforts to bring these same people out of poverty. If we want the desperately poor around the worlds to no longer be starving, and to have the opportunity and comforts that a higher standard of living brings, they will necessarily increase their carbon footprint with the lowest cost and most likely technologies to achieve that. I think that is what I hear you addressing. And you are absolutely right. And also correct that people don't address that. Humans have an optimism bias. It's a shared failing we are all subject to: we are all above average drivers, we don't want higher taxes on the rich because we'll all be rich someday, etc. And people who talk about climate change and poverty can fall victim to that too. That you bring this up is exactly why I want voices like yours to be part of the conversation.
True in countries like the USA we use a huge amount of energy, but has anyone ever done any research on pollution per energy usage charts and graphs produced by the USA. I would like to see that chart showing that because the USA is using the largest amount of energy is also contributing to the largest amount of the world's pollution. Now that would be telling.
So that data exists and is readily available.
Here is one example. China has surpassed the US in emissions. And in fact a big driver of that is exactly your previous point: China, for whatever anyone may think of them, managed to bring the largest number of people out of poverty ever in the last century. Along with that increased wealth came greater emissions.
Example: Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean there is a plastic floating garage patch as large as the State of Texas. It has been proven, though not highly said in the media, that the plastic is not coming from the USA, the plastic is coming from Asain Countries.
Agreed. No one should shy away from being willing to attribute the primary drivers of problems. Most plastic waste globally in our oceans
comes from rivers in Asia. Of course most people on the planet live in Asia, but that doesn't change the source.
The human race can do nothing about catastrophic events like tectonic plate movement, volcanoes. There have been several times in the history of the human race where a massive volcanic eruption has caused climate change that resulted in massive deaths around the world, and it will happen again, just a matter of time. The Earth has been visited by extinction event astroids and it will happen again, just a matter of time. Just hope none of this will happen in our lifetimes.
I agree, that doesn't sound like any moire fun to live through than a pandemic (which I'll be honest, I'm not enjoying). Though in a strict sense, this is not really relevant to the discussion of things we can control. Unless you feel that we should throw up our hands and give up - though I see from your comment further one you do not feel that way.
Last but by no means the least is population growth. Humans pollute and change their environments, for the good or for the worse it is going to happen. All the talk about climate change will not even put a dent in that.
There really aren't any globally, socially acceptable means to cut human population. And yes, that is a root of so many of the issues we face. I couldn't agree more. One well study way that works over time is to educate women. Turns out that when women have the opportunity to get an education, and the associated control over their lives that tends to come with that, they have children later and have fewer of them. Though this may seem uncontroversial in the west, it is of course not met with universal acceptance.
I am not saying to give up the fight to live in a clean world, we must keep that going because no one wants to go swimming in the ocean surrounded by garbage. We have to fight to keep the air safe to breathe, and the water we drink safe to consume. We must keep those fights going. But also keep in mind destroying other's lives through huge taxation to fight climate change is not going to work.
I certainly don't think you want to give up. Nothing in your message suggests you aren't a fighter for what you believe in, and that's wonderful! I think we all want clean water and breathable air. The question of how to accomplish that is a political one, and views will differ in terms of what is worth trading to get that, or what levers should be pulled to accomplish it. I see that you likely hold a set of beliefs about the best means to do so, and they likely differ from others. That's good! We should be having straightforward and respectful conversations that take place in good faith in a working democracy (or representative republic - I don't particularly want to get into the semantics of that here). The truth is there are different ways of accomplishing things, and all of those routes, with their associated costs and benefits should be discussed. It doesn't mean everyone will be happy with the outcome - I tell my kids that compromise is when you find a solution where everyone is similarly upset.
My largest gripe is those of our leaders that are pushing climate change solutions are themselves producing huge carbon footprints. If they want to get my respect then live according to what you are preaching, live by example. Because if they don't people like me will not take them seriously. These rich politicians and celebrities' carbon footprints are hundreds of times larger than yours or mine.
Interestingly, I think this is a bit like litter - 'If everyone else is littering, then why shouldn't I?' In my view (and it is that, my opinion) to reject that sort of thinking takes a sea change. Here Texas is a great example. Their "Don't Mess With Texas" litter campaign was tremendously successful and wasn't a command and control action by the government. It didn't impose as tax, nor a fine. But it reached people. I'm personally not a big proponent of forcing people to do things, I always think choice is good. But there are ways to encourage people to act in accordance with the choices they say they want, without imposing costs on them. The litter campaign in Texas was a wonderful example of that.
I do hope I have not insulted, offended, or otherwise made you feel as if I do not have the utmost respect for you. If so, I assure it was inadvertent and not my intent. I truly appreciate when anyone has the courage to have a respectful discourse with someone they may not agree fully with. And I genuinely appreciate you having taken the time to reply. Thank you!
Edit: Some typos fixed, please excuse the remaining ones.
