all 184 comments

[–]InternJedi 142 points143 points  (6 children)

United Passive Aggressive Nations

[–]TheTickledYogi 10 points11 points  (3 children)

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!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

isn't there a ban on plastic in Delhi?

[–]RiderfromRohan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

[–]TheTickledYogi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]biggie_eagle 121 points122 points  (22 children)

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

[–]Bad-Bone-Being 123 points124 points  (10 children)

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

[–]sIlentr3b3l 19 points20 points  (1 child)

while casually mentioning it himself

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

well, that's kind of the point of inb4ing

[–]Danilowaifers 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]Triggeredsaurus_Rex 38 points39 points  (20 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (7 children)

i hope you're right

[–]TryToUseCommonSense 16 points17 points  (6 children)

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.

[–]Twokindsofpeople 1 point2 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]TryToUseCommonSense 5 points6 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]Twokindsofpeople -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

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

[–]TryToUseCommonSense -1 points0 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]Twokindsofpeople 0 points1 point  (1 child)

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.

[–]TryToUseCommonSense 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

[–]lowdownlow 16 points17 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]Triggeredsaurus_Rex 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]lowdownlow 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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

[–]LiveForPanda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]ethanGeltan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

[–]Telcontar77 2 points3 points  (3 children)

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

[–]FarleyPrim 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]Triggeredsaurus_Rex 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]FarleyPrim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

[–]thenrightyall 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sorry on behalf of Australia.

[–]Lousy_hater 36 points37 points  (8 children)

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

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

australians as well

[–]Triggeredsaurus_Rex 31 points32 points  (2 children)

Germany is building a bunch more coal power plants.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Using coal but not building new plants.

[–]NFossil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Better start building winds and suns.

[–]Twitchingbouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]Oprahs_snatch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Using fossils from the past fuels the Republican agenda.

[–]Montana_Fish -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]popfreq -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]DavidlikesPeace 31 points32 points  (3 children)

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

[–]groundskeeperelon 7 points8 points  (1 child)

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

[–]Tyronefriedrich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meanwhile things are looking up for Canberrans

[–]Revydown 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's been a problem for all of humanity

[–]Asolit 2 points3 points  (2 children)

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

[–]pushkar000 10 points11 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]Djs3634 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

[–]sgt_mjr_stretchnuts -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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