Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Posted byu/[deleted]6 months ago

UN chief hails India, China's commitment to fighting climate change at a time when 'others are failing'

88% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast

United Passive Aggressive Nations

-112 points · 6 months ago(5 children)

China, Russia and the other non-countries are starting to get uppity now that we have become semi-equal rivals in the Information War.

The largest and 3rd largest countries in the world with the 2nd and 3rd most powerful militaries, one of them being the 2nd largest economy as well, combined representing ~20% of the world population are non-countries?

Are you from another planet mate?

49 points · 6 months ago

Every country other than the US is a non country mate /s

You mean shithole?

At the end he says they're using the classic "make your opponent account for his own values" I'm pretty sure this is satire making fun of Americans

Blatant American Snobbishness.

I know, India realizes it needs to get behind this. As an Indian, I will not celebrate until I see more concern for air pollution; please do something about Delhi! I lived there for 7 days and did not see the giant stadium infront of our hotel window until the 5th. This wasn't even peak pollution season. Oh and two words: biodegradable plastic!

1 point · 6 months ago

isn't there a ban on plastic in Delhi?

A ban is a joke if there's no authority to force it.

It's helped the nicer parts of delhi; don't get me wrong India has gotten very clean compared to five years ago, but it's nowhere near where we need to be.

inb4 someone says "China's still using coal" or "Indians still shit in the streets"

Im using coal and shittin in the streets and Im in the UK

26 points · 6 months ago(8 children)
30 points · 6 months ago

what better feeling than shitting on an empty street at 3 in the morning?

I can think of a few

23 points · 6 months ago

Like remembering to pull down your trousers before shitting on an empty street at 3 in the morning?

8 points · 6 months ago

yeah, that one's a must

You'll have the pleasure of knowing that someone will eventually step on your shit on their way to work.

-5 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Not because I want to, I just cant hold it in and it sprays everywhere I go

That seems to be a common problem in Newcastle, I've noticed

while casually mentioning it himself

26 points · 6 months ago

well, that's kind of the point of inb4ing

It's not about coal. It's an issue yeah but people in poverty are one of the biggest contributors. It's just that India and china just happen to be the highest populations on earth.

-2 points · 6 months ago(2 children)

This is so completely irrelevant to the topic. Are you really that lacking in attention that you would say anything for it. Go get help.

Are you uncomfortable with negative things being said about your country?

India wets the air in order to lower the pollution. They're not so much leading it in order to fight climate change. Green power is cheaper and the health issues are causing them to invest more in it. China isn't afraid of Nuclear technology which when solar and wind isn't enough is the best alternative.

As Green power becomes cheaper most will find no reason to build carbon power. Won't matter how many times politicians say global warming doesn't exists.

10 points · 6 months ago

i hope you're right

It's not even a matter of hope, it's a matter of economics. Even if you don't believe in climate change, green energy is reaching a point that it is becoming more viable and cheaper than coal and gas. There us no stopping it. When people realize they'll be paying less in energy bills, they'll support green.

Average people already support green energy by overwhelming numbers everywhere except coal country. You're assuming that the current energy companies won't stifle green energy development in areas already supplied by coal and natural gas in order to maximize their investment. Most places don't have referendums to build new power plants, it comes from the government, and if enough of the government has been captured by the coal lobby change will come far far slower than it would organically.

Not really, my argument is that a green switch is inevitable. Could be a year from now, could be 100 years from now, it's going to happen.

I never gave a time line, because such a time line is impossible to predict, but I can say one thing for certain, change is inevitable.

As green corporations become richer,they'll be able to promise billions in investment, and effectively lobby local governments against coal monopolies. Once again, no time line, but it will eventually happen.

Coal companies can try and slow down the green switch, but they're knowingly fighting a losing battle, and trying to make as much money as they can, before they fall.

If the green switch takes place 100 years from now there won’t be a global civilization. We’ll be warring city states.

It's the opposite. The green switch ensures that global resources aren't stretched thin, while current coal and gas resources ensure that nations will inevitably go to war over control of those resources, due to over use, and lack of supply.

If we don’t divest from fossil fuel by 2050 the coasts will be underwater, desert will spread across inland fertile areas, and there will be mass starvation and wars over water. You’re in a fantasy.

When did I disagree to this? I think there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I don't think we're disagreeing with each other.

If you're taking issue with my 100 year time line, it was an exaggerated saying, nothing more. My point was that the green switch is going to happen, and that's about it.

The only thing I'd say is that I'm not super alarmist about it. The ozone layer is healing, nations are reducing their reliance on non-renewable sources, and renewables are becoming cheaper and more affordable.

On a side note, divesting too quickly can also have a detrimental impact as well, and would also lead to mass starvation and increased poverty. There needs to be, and actually is a systematic global effort to reduce reliance on coal, gas and oil, and increase renewable energy. These things don't occur overnight, and take time.

I like to believe in the good of humanity, and I believe that humanity in general is realizing and fixing its mistakes. We'll survive this century, and the next, and the one after that (provided we don't kill each other in a nuclear holocaust), because humanity is resilient, if nothing else.

China's recent major gains haven't been due to nuclear power though, it has been them reaching their wind and solar power goals ahead of schedule along with things like replacing fleets of busses and taxis with electric vehicles.

The reason I brought up Nucelar was because it is set to help offset carbon as a backup source as well.

The US has seen growth in green energy, however there has also been a growth in Natural gas. A country isn't going to have only solar and wind.

Right, China is tripling their nuclear power capacity in a few years. They've made huge gains elsewhere though.

And natural gas, don't forget that. This winter they are increasing the use of gas to maximum for heating in northern China.

Actually it's mostly by switching from coal to natural gas as their primary fossil fuel.

But at least the Indian government acknowledges that climate change is real.

So does almost every other nation in the world. Only Indians are on here self-congratulating themselves for acknowledging something obvious.

The Indians are just acknowledging the words of the UN. Not to mention, when a country impoverished by centuries of colonisation are doing as much as countries that became rich through centuries of colonising others, that's not unimpressive.

Except there's that one that's pretty damn important in the grand scheme of things who ain't officially acknowledged shit, yknow that one that pretty much singlehandedly controls & influences global trade?

Also, not only are Indians acknowledging it, they are actively trying to do something about it.

Fossil fuel won't be put away entirely. It'll just be used where it can be more efficient, like places where wind and solar can't quite work. If anything it be better to make fossil-fuels less dirty and as backup and let green energy take precedence. Eventually, fossil fuel won't be needed anymore in the future when green energy starts to take over, and the economy will adapt to the change.

We're at that point today. Safe Nuclear power is a very real thing. In fact Nuclear power kills less people than any other power type. In the works there are plants that won't even create a disaster. If it fails it seals all of it automatically.

The real truth is if Carbon Industry didn't spend billions of dollars than it is unlikely that there would be global warming.

The Three Mile Island incident and Fukushima accident scared people away from nuclear power though. It is more efficient. But when the small chance something goes wrong occurs, the consequences can be catastrophic. And this prospect, no matter how trivial, terrifies the populace.

Also as for global warming, it's already too late. It's been WAY too late since the 1980s. And it wasn't from just the carbon industry, but the sum of the industrial revolution and both world wars. The CO2 still lingered from then. So then, the climatologists came to the conclusion according to their projections that temperatures were gonna spike HARD in the next few decades. They were pissing their pants in sheer terror, and one even said don't have babies, that's how hopeless it appeared.

However, (and it's a BIG however) projections had been wrong before. It was based on the scenario where we did absolutely nothing about the situation. But we are doing something about it. We're working to cut carbon, and we're investing in green energy. Greed doesn't take precedence anymore, everyone wants clean energy today. But we just haven't reached that state as you say we have with nuclear energy, and I explained why it isn't embraced yet. Also, nuclear fusion is being studied, and is a heck of a lot better than fission.

So all we can do now is adapt to our current situation, and look to solve the future problems.

Sorry on behalf of Australia.

Meanwhile the American leader are discussing how coal is the future.

42 points · 6 months ago

australians as well

28 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Germany is building a bunch more coal power plants.

9 points · 6 months ago

Using coal but not building new plants.

Better start building winds and suns.

while America is still on track to meet the pollution reduction commitments it previously set under the Paris agreement, while not paying other countries to do so.

Using fossils from the past fuels the Republican agenda.

Meanwhile america is the global leader for cutting emissions. So...

India and China will still continue to have coal plants for decades as will most of the world. It just forms too large a percentage of the energy base. For poorer, energy starved nations, it will be part of the mix much longer than for richer ones. Making coal less polluting is a win for all.

Avoid improvements because it is not perfect is just bad decision making.

11 points · 6 months ago

China is going to lose a lot from global warming. A lot of the most populated areas in China are very close to the ocean, likewise with India.

Likewise with America, Brazil, and Europe, but we're still largely led by dumbasses

This isn't about logic. It's about short-term selfish self-interest

Australia here, every major city in our country is by the ocean.

Meanwhile things are looking up for Canberrans

That's been a problem for all of humanity

4 points · 6 months ago

That's so wholesome. 2 countries not in the "western hemisphere", pushing for a better world. I f***in love it.

i mena nobody cares about a better world. its just that we(india) and china have recognised whats going to be up in the next 30 years. energy is a huge huge industry and when it inevitably goes green, we are going to be...well we wont win, but we'll hopefully be somewhere in the front of the pack, behind china.

which is a good thing. money drives the world. if we(not india, we as a human race) want to see some change, we need to find ways to make money off it. then everybody else will come on board.

-13 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Is everything a fuckin dig at the US when it comes to the UN?

Comment deleted6 months ago(6 children)

What would the Paris agreement actually have forced that country to do besides pay a large sum of money?

5 points · 6 months ago

not even that. Paris agreement was non coercitive.

edit: which makes the withdrawal even more ridiculous

Trump doesn't mind rejoining the paris agreement if usa doesn't have to pay, he's said that recently and before as well

A republican, like trump, would see this as "big government" and would rather the free market do it them selves, especially when not being apart saves money.

Republicans don’t want it because they get money from the fossil fuel industry

-10 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

"Others" - cough cough... Whom, we are united, in a state of not naming...

-23 points · 6 months ago(4 children)
26 points · 6 months ago

Are you going by per capita or total volumes of emissions? If by per capita, countries like the US are still on top. By total emissions, the two countries have close to 2.3 billion people

Even by total volume, the US is above China and India.

12 points · 6 months ago

Trust me the industrial west is miles out ahead for the amount of total(over time) and per capital CO2 emission.

The rest of the world polluted much less after all the polluting manufacturing got shipped to China and India. Now the rest of the world, and by that I mean mostly Americans, basks in self righteousness. Must be nice to profit from cheap labor, ignore externalities, and bitch about it all too.

-29 points · 6 months ago(More than 16 children)

They also have the biggest populations. How would they not be among the biggest emitters? Talk emissions per person maybe

-17 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Yah China is still the worst polluter. But at this point it’s only fair to measure in % of govt money going into progress.

Because US and China are at different stages of development. A lot of Chinese are still living in a dark age environment with limited resources. So China is still industrializing these areas. The US are in a very good position already but from the eye of the world, given US’ resources they could do so much more.

11 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

They are a fifth third (Forgot india) of the world's population and everyone is sourcing all their manufacturing to them (Remember USA during its industrializing era? Where rivers were catching on fire..). However, China is the leader of renewable energy and when it comes to emissions per capita, China is lower than USA.

Per capita. They are not. The US is far worse per capita.

-19 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Your link proves me right.

-25 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
24 points · 6 months ago

US: 16.1

India: 1.9

China: 7.7

-7 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
22 points · 6 months ago

That is per capita consumption. So was yours (Our numbers even match up)

No one claims that the US is the worst in the world. /u/telmimore is stating that the US consumes more per capita compared to India and China, and he's right, is he not?

US: 16.1

India: 1.9

China: 7.7

And that's not particularly surprising either, given how agrarian these two countries are. If anything, I think the data reflects poorly on India's economic position.

But when looking at pollution emissions per capita, US is far worse than India (8x worse) and China (2x worse)

But when looking at pollution emissions per capita, US is far worse than India (8x worse) and China (2x worse)

True, I must have originally mixed it up with saying in absolute terms.

To be honest, the best measure of pollution is kg co2 / gdp output, which in turn produces:

US: 5172336000kg / $18120000000 for 0.000285449007 kg / U.S. dollar China: 10641789000kg / $11060000000000 for 0.000962187071 kg / U.S. dollar

Meaning china produces almost exactly 4x the pollution the US does per GDP dollar. They have some serious work to do, then

21 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

How did you arrive at the opposite conclusion of a source you posted, while speaking with certainty on the matter?

Edit: Here's a study by Oxford stating that CO2-GDP fluctuates wildly to the point of being worthless for analysis.

They said the US is far worse, which means relative to the things that was being talked about previously - in this case, India and China. They didn't say worst.

4 points · 6 months ago

per capita.

-34 points · 6 months ago(14 children)
40 points · 6 months ago

you also fund Saudi Arabia, and it doesn't seem to cause you any cognitive dissonance.

No, I loathe the fact that we do that and I always have, vocally.

What about non verbally?

Hey there, you cant call keyboard warriors out like that, didnt you read the reddit rules

Thoughts and prayers.

9 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

There has only been one country which has left the UN unilaterally, and that was Sukarno's Indonesia, and he was a violent dictator. Flouncing out of something because they might point out your nonsense is petulant.

Plus, the UN Headquarters building is in New York.

Don't forget their inexplicable hate-boner for Israel.

5 points · 6 months ago


-6 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
-7 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
16 points · 6 months ago

no other country on earth have separate roads for their citizens based on their ethnicity

-8 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
1 point · 6 months ago

...which does not invalidate my previous point. thanks.

-5 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Haha "others". We all know you mean USA, just say it.

Let's be honest, there are plenty of countries which are failing to tackle climate change. Not everything is about the US.

Let's be honest, there are plenty of countries which are failing to tackle climate change.

You are right, but they don't really matter much in this context. China and the US are responsible for about 45% of all CO2 emissions. You need these guys to lead the way. Once you have the US, China, Russia, India, EU and Japan on board, that's about 70% of all emissions. The remaining stragglers will soon follow.

-9 points · 6 months ago(1 child)

The US doesn't pay for European defense.

It is 2nd biggest one and out of all the top emitters and one of the highest when it comes to per capita emissions. It's also the only big emission country that didn't sign the Paris accords and actually want to invest in oil and coal.

-5 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
-21 points · 6 months ago(More than 14 children)
13 points · 6 months ago


-7 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
8 points · 6 months ago

Iran being in the top spots of the human rights committees at the UN

-20 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
11 points · 6 months ago

yeah no. it doesn't work that way. it's up to you to provide evidence for your claim.

[He is right] (, although both of you act like children.

You don't know how to Google?

1 point · 6 months ago

the point is, anyone can come up in any debate and claim anything; for the claim to be accepted, it's up to the claimant to prove his point.

Hahahahaha good luck in life

Love it. You say something, provide no evidence, and then make some dumb condescending remark when asked to back your claim up. Good luck in life indeed.

[He is right] (, and it is common knowledge to anyone paying attention to the UN.

4 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

thanks for that info. i was not aware of that, and even if it comes from quite a biased source considering the subject, i take it for a fact now. This is how we should argue nowadays: providing sources. Glad you did it.

e: a space

Hey that reminds me of the lyrics to "Birth Ritual"

You can drive my tail to watch the circus

A birth ritual, a birth of idiots

Now I woke up blessed and good strives for heartache

Marked for the death ritual

@ us

-49 points · 6 months ago(22 children)

It's impractical to ban a product such as meat. Think about it. A few issues: meat is an important ingredient in Muslim countries. From word of mouth, I heard Pakistan has meat in like 90% of their food. There is a holiday around the sacrifice of an animal. Also in the US, fast food chains make a hell lot of money. No doubt they have a strong lobby.

-13 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

You might as well ban all agriculture if you think meat is the only food that causes environmental damage. The amount of nitrogen runoff from fertilizer is literally killing the oceans. You know the dead zone that's ever expanding we saw on the front page a few days ago? Agriculture runoff. It's not only killing fish and plants, it's also killing oxygen producing algae, which accounts for the majority of oxygen we breath.

The amount of nitrogen runoff from fertilizer is literally killing the oceans.

I know that, and im not really for artificial fertilizers... there are really good expensive alternative options which no one wants to use, also removing meat, means less agriculture as less food made for animals to eat...

Actually good fertilizer is extremely expensive and not scalable. The plants like alfalfa and hay eaten by a large amount of livestock grow on land not suitable for other forms of agriculture.

yup expensive, i dnt mind paying more for food

I personally enjoy that type of food also, so I hope it catches on.

Even if we convince the Muslims to stop eating meat, there are a ton of groups and cultures that use meat. Muslims were just an example. I'd hate to say it but, convincing everyone to do something for the sake of something a lot of them don't believe in (many still deny climate change) is difficult to say the least. Instead if we focus on alternatives, I think that would be a better idea. There is something called fake chicken. Maybe try to make fake beef?

I kind of see /u/arrangedmarriagescar's point. We all eat too much meat, meat production is a significant contributor to global warming, and reducing meat consumption would be a step in the right direction.

We're eating more meat than ever before, and using increasingly nasty processing methods. Plus we're seeing a significant increase in bowel cancer and haemorrhoidal disease in young people, thought to be related to red meat consumption, processed foods and low-fibre diets.

Could definitely use less meat production and consumption. Its hard to apply it practically.

1 point · 6 months ago

it can be applied, but only with sufficient education

Tell me how u plan to stop climate change unless u stop the production of meat, or u'll just accept it? And why doesn't the same logic apply to coal workers who lost their jobs, and livelihood cause other cultures imposed the climate change on them... Where's the equality in that

There is something called fake chicken. Maybe try to make fake beef?

I don't believe anyone has issues with that... the point is meat which comes from real animals...

This is not even considering the fact, how inherently inhumane it is to raise animals and kill them for taste buds

no country is fighting climate change, when they start banning meat having children, then i'll believe it.


At the very least, banning beef since beef production creates way more methane per calorie than any other livestock.

so India got that covered already. yay!

12 points · 6 months ago

not really. it's not eating beef, part of the problem, it's their mere existence. India has a shitload of cows and beef. So, no, India 's got nothing covered.

It's not eating, but drinking dairy and exporting beef, it's the world's largest exporter of beef

Or invest heavily in artificially produced meats.

7 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

This is agressively ignorant propaganda. Fighting climate change is extremely important, meaning people like this should not be listened to.

Firstly, it is not true that "no country is fighting climate change". Many countries are, some countries are doing better than others. The USA is doing an especially terrible job, as hinted in the title of this thread. Since China started caring about global warming, climate change "skeptics" have moved to claiming that the US is doing a "good enough job" compared to a non-descript "rest of the world": indeed, any excuse will do.

Secondly, agriculture and meat: meat production is indeed a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is completely irrelevant that methane is 30x more powerful than CO2, what matters is the CO2 equivalent quantities. And here, agriculture emits only about 9% of the total in the USA, far below electricity (29%) and transportation (27%). So, should countries or individuals "ban" electricity or transportation? No, they should attempt to reduce their consumption. Likewise for meat. Instead of making absurd demands to "ban meat", which are certain to hurt the cause of ecological preservation among non-vegetarians, one should simply encourage the consumption of eggs, chicken, pork, fish and dairy, in place of beef and lamb. This has the added advantage (compared to banning meat altogether) of making it easy to have a balanced diet.

I don't know what your motivations are for spreading lies; I would guess that you're a nationalist, or a vegan, or perhaps both. You are certainly doing a good job at hurting the cause of preserving the climate, and perhaps that's the motivation.

-4 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Firstly thats not a worldwide representation, worldwide agriculture is worse

Secondly, the gwp that epa uses is underestimated... It's been revised now

The most important line

A sharp rise in methane pollution could jeopardize the goal — enshrined in the 196-nation Paris climate pact — of capping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a consortium of 81 scientists warned in December.

“Such a target will become increasingly difficult if reductions in methane emissions are not also addressed strongly and rapidly,” they wrote in an open letter.

-5 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
-20 points · 6 months ago(2 children)

US has much more carbon emissions per person than India and China...

Ninja edit: US has about 8x of India's carbon emissions per capita, and about 2x of China's

Yeah, and not overall. US has a lower population. It's simple math guy....

-7 points · 6 months ago(9 children)

yo man ive seen you a few times now. i urge you to keep the discussion within relevant boundaries. also this place might not be the best forum to do your thing. also can i see some facts or something about the slavery and occupation?

Get off the soapbox and tell us what you REALLY think.

-5 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Shut. Your. Pie. Hole.

4 points · 6 months ago

yeah, it's all very interesting. but the main and only emergency right now is this global warming thing. you can twist it how you want, this is the core problem of our world. first let's fix that, and then, let's see who is a bad country and who is a good country in regard to human rights and so on

They are two of the biggest polluters in the world, so the comment is actually on point. UN hails massive polluters as gods of climate change while they allow human rights abusers like KSA to take a role on committees on Human Rights and Commissions on the Status of Women. It's backwards land. If the UN condemns your behavior, you are doing something correctly.

China and US are the biggest polluters by a large margin. Know your facts

They are also the biggest countries y'know, obviously, they pollute a lot. China and India combined are almost 3 billion people.

3 points · 6 months ago

The relevant criteria is how much pollution per person, otherwise you are comparing Denmark to Germany and considering it an apples to apples comparison. So far China is 1/2 the emission per person compared to the States and India emits 1/10th the emissions per person compared to the United States.

-9 points · 6 months ago(0 children)
-24 points · 6 months ago(1 child)


-8 points · 6 months ago(0 children)

Per capita they are far lower than the western countries for pollution.

Community Details





A place for major news from around the world, excluding US-internal news.

Create Post
r/worldnews Rules
No US Internal News or Politics
No Editorialized or Misleading Titles
No Feature stories
No Editorials, Opinion or Analysis Pieces
No Articles In Languages Other Than English
No Images, Videos or Audio Clips
No Bigotry or Other Offensive Content
No Personal Attacks
No Memes, Gifs, unlabeled NSFW images
No Old News Articles (≥ 1 Week old)
Related Subs

16,300,610 subscribers


368,208 subscribers


47,538 subscribers


98,783 subscribers


410,677 subscribers


471,171 subscribers


410,838 subscribers


13,141,505 subscribers


1,636 subscribers


13,267,870 subscribers

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.