[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

I'm not sure we disagree much You were originally reacting to my comment regarding someone else who stated that we can vote our way backwards if we don't like what's going on. That would be a terrible move and the Paris accord is necessary for the planet. Additionally, renewable energy, grid modernization, the energy storage and reduced overall costs that BEV's represent are all good- even great- things for our environment and economy.

We agree that China and India are thorny problems but a framework has been worked out that requires huge efforts by China- which appear to be underway. Something about smog shrouded death cities seems to have awakened their national conscience to the severity of the issue. China should be down to 56 percent of its power from Coal this year. I'm less certain that India has the technical prowess to implement the needed changes and appreciate that they will need assistance to do so.

To answer your main question where you wonder why we should have to make any sacrifices when they get a different deal. It was a framework designed to hopefully keep the planet from going beyond certain thresholds, tries to spread disruptions fairly to an economy grappling with wild growth and demand vs a more mature industry where coal is already waning. Not doing anything- or reversing our own progress- because they have more people seems like a terrible choice.

Regarding your 125 percent of X comment, I'd say that it's both important for you to limit or decrease your pollution while that family minimizes it's increase in output as China works to stabilize and then begin to reduce it's aggregate output. Coal isn't the only issue but our own percentage is dropping quickly and we're probably 10 years ahead of them in the time consuming transition away from coal. If you don't think the Paris Accords were a square deal, then that could be argued endlessly although the U.S. being a higher per capita polluter is a big deal. Our century long run with no constraints is something that other countries have agreed to forgo, for their benefit and ours. People are people everywhere and I think the bargain reasonably respects that standards of living must increase across the board.

This was a very thought-provoking comment, thanks for the time you invested and the spirit of open dialog it represents. I see your points and do not fully agree, but I'm definitely not anti-progress, I just happen to believe both in consensus (this is a global affair after all) and the importance of freedom & patriotism, they aren't mutually exclusive.

However, at this point I'd need to expand on these further, and we are clearly in violation of forum rules even though the discussion is civilized. It would be nice to have a subforum where this is actually allowed. We are adults here, and a bit of potential rough talk shouldn't be a reason for outlawing political discourse IMHO.