We talk about climate change when it really should be called Climate Disaster. All these things happening to our beautiful world are putting us right behind the 8 ball. What makes it possible for us to exist on this planet? One thing, The WILD, not the houses, buildings, highways etc, etc, etc. And who is destroying the WILD, We are. We are also causing the oceans to acidify and where does most of the oxygen we need to survive come from, the oceans. This acidification is going to have a big effect on the very organisms that create our oxygen, so where does that leave us, right behind the 8 ball and from what's been happening so far, it looks like this change is only going to gather speed as it progresses. So as the Great Bette Davis said "Hang on to your hats guys, it's going to be a bumpy ride" or something like that.

It's quite a dilemma. Nobody wants to quit their convenient habits, and everyone can say "Nothing will change if I'm the only one who changes his behavior". The recent climate conference proves it again. Sadly, it seems extreme events and pressure from climate refugees to northern countries will have to become much worse until it's bad enough for most countries to take action.
In economics it's sometimes called "individually rational behavior leading to collectively irrational (if not self-destructive) behavior".

Why does everyone keep pointing fingers at the US when it comes to the climate disaster/change? Based on the size of our country, we are leading the world in reducing carbon emissions. China, India, et. al. need to step up and do their part.

Pardon me but I never pointed the finger at the USA. When I say us, I refer to mankind in general. We are all in this ride together like it or not.

If you believe that post you will believe anything, it is the most unbalanced report I have seen in ages. (If you want real facts look up those done by scientists and global monitors)

Bill

Pointing at individual countries is part of the problem. „We‘ll wait until xy has started acting...“.

No, Bill, it isn't. The main problem is the West blaming everything on China.

Climate change is a global problem so blaming it all on one country is simply ignoring what's going on in your own backyard.

I do believe what scientists say albeit not those scientists that are paid by political parties or multi-national companies.

Most western country's have already set targets to eliminate their carbon footprint, (With many of them way ahead of schedule) so your claim of look in your own back yard in most cases is false.
Currently China produces the most carbon emissions on the planet (Fact) with India catching up, however while they are still producing coal fire power stations (The most efficient way to pollute the planet) it is only because of their speed of growth requires more power to be available quickly, long term they are one of the largest investors in carbon neutral power generation, and look upon the the coal fire stations as a temporary pain to get a long term gain.
Blaming others for singling country's out when you are doing the same is no way to get people to change, (Neither is blaming history as the problem wasn't known at the time) so get off your high horse and join the real world by listening to real scientists, rather than the sensational inaccuracies by the article to you posted.

Bill

So who are the "real" scientists? Where do you get your facts from?

I said it's a global problem! And I didn't single out country. But you may want to join the real world and notice that it's not only China and India. Now that's singling out while conveniently ignoring the rest.


So get off your high horse.

How convenient:

https://www.businessinsider.com/southeast-asia-threaten-to-return-plastic-trash-to-west-2019-5

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

As you can see I deal in facts not fiction. (If you don't like the truth, tough)

Bill

I'm not joining this discussion, but ... Wikipedia? Really?

Wikipedia as such is not reliable, but can hardly be used for biased propaganda, as everything edited is at least checked for plausibility by other freelance staff. In many cases you can check the references provided. In the article linked above, footnote 15 renders a source from the University of Oxford about CO2 per capita, for example:
https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2

Carbon itself is not the problem, but Carbon Dioxide, because all things generally are made up of Carbon. But if that was the only issue then the government would distribute to everyone bum plugs for every Tom Dick and Mary plus their cat, dog and Cow; car , truck and tractor to fix it all.

It is interesting that the air we breath contains approx. 0.0407% Co2 but it is not the main contributor to green house issues....

By volume, the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere is about 78.09 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon.
The largest greenhouse gas by volume is actually the one most people tend to overlook: water vapour, whose concentration varies significantly depending on temperature. As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount of humidity in the atmosphere also goes up, further heating our planet in a vicious cycle.
Ok I am quoting NASA ( just hope that they are an accepted source)https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

The Earth's Climate does fluctuate in cycles and we are only about 10,000 years out of the last Ice Age. But Earth is suppose to go back into an Ice Age again in about 90,000 years.( start knitting your woolly sox)

That is if the same cycles recur,but this time there is about 7,000,000,000 ish people on the planet. That may have an impact on how mother Earth handles this current standard WARM PERIOD.


Allan
(save gas..... fart in a jar)

Hello again. It isn't my idea that the oceans are acidifying, that tidbit comes from the scientists themselves and I would have to argue heartily that it's anything but "The Wild" and Old Sol that makes it possible for mankind to exist here on Mother Earth and we treat her so badly in return. We are already greatly overpopulating as each one of us wants to carve out his own little patch of paradise or tame the wilderness for himself and who can blame him or her. Bye for now.

You gotta be kidding. The USA has the highest carbon imprint next to China. And despite being the 2nd top offender on the planet we have a dimwit president who won't believe what the majority of scientists say in regard to climate change. I guess because he thinks he has such a "great brain". Only a narcicistic idiot would make that claim. https://www.graphicmaps.com/carbon-emissions-by-country But actually we know he says this sort of crap because he has been bought by the fossil fuel industry. Money talks.

Money does talk. We've had recent past presidents whose families money came from Texas oil, and others in the past as well. The switchover to electric vehicle is happening much slower than it should be as big oil money to politicians , and from investors, keeps the electric transportation industry from reaching its full potential. Politicians supported by oil companies will never vote for bills to add charging stations to highways from DOT funds so your electric car can't take you far. And somebody's got to supply that power. Maybe the electric utility companies can take on the oil companies for the market share of fuel/power supply. Of course whomever has more money will win that influence fight..

Nothing to do with the oil company's, the 2 main obstacles to electric car development (Besides the public who are very suspicious of them) are batteries (Manufactures cannot get enough of them as it takes time to ramp up production and build new factory's) as an example Mercedes has had to halve its intended production of the ECQ model due to not enough batteries available, plus it also takes time to build up the fast charging infrastructure so that people can charge up their cars when they go on a run. (Remember the ICE car has been around for over 100 years so garages are plentiful)
BTW. Texas is one of the biggest oil states, yet next to California it has one of the largest investments in renewable energy.
Also since 1990 the amount of CO2 produced by the US has only increased by 0.4%.

Bill

There are still many problems connected with e cars. They are only useful if the electricity for them is produced in a sustainable way. Speaking of Germany, there is still quite a resistance to even more wind turbines (there are already thousands meanwhile -> edit: currently approx. 29,000 onshore windmills in Germany), disputes about their minimum distance to houses, but a further problem is we need lots of devices to store this uneven type of energy (e.g. pump-storage power plants). Local initiatives to block such things paralyze everything (ironically sometimes lead by green party members).
Another problem specifically in Germany is the grim outlook for the many thousands of employees in the automotive sector. Manufacturing electric cars just doesn‘t require all the skills and workforce used for combustion engine production.
There are also safety risks, recently a Tesla immediately burst into flames due to an accident in Austria, the fire brigade was unable to extinguish the fire for hours, and for weeks nobody was willing to dispose the battery.
Some parties think an open technology approach is wise, hydrogen cars might become interesting at some stage, but there‘s lots of problems to be solved...