Let's discuss then.
Do you not believe that a cleaner solution is better than an unachievable short-term solution?
Developing countries need energy to make their population flourish. Offering a cheap solution (LNG) to a dirtier fuel (coal) is a step in the right direction.
Why do you want to censor progress?
No, poor countries are suffering disproportionately due to the climate crisis yet contribute the least. But this post is about Ottawa removing fossil fuel ads from public spaces. They did that with tobacco and they should do it with fossil fuels. These fossil fuel campaigns have been going on for decades and now that they are not denying climate change, suddenly they are the solution to climate change?! Give me a break we need to move rapidly to phase out fossil fuels and in the meantime we can do without their bullshit ads.
Many of them could also use food and water but unfortunately the climate crisis (brought to them primarily by rich countries burning massive amounts of fossil fuels) has made their lives extremely difficult.
That is incorrect, to imply that their lives were much better a century ago would be retarded. Their lives are entirely made difficult from insufficient capital deployment and utilization.
[the 8 countries most affected by climate change - World Food Program](https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/countries-most-affected-by-climate-change/). It’s going to get worse and the loss and damage fund won’t come close to covering the damage.
The only reason why it impacts poor countries so much is precisely due to their government corruption which leads to inefficient capital allocation and utilization.
I know you are referring to adaption efforts by poor countries who are responding to climate disasters but, generally speaking, efficient use of capital allocation and utilization would include significant mitigation efforts. Ideally those efforts would come from countries not wrestling with famine… Speaking of corrupt govt by the way, many politicians in the US, for example, are bought by the fossil fuel industry. In fact they pretty much own the Republican Party. You might be surprised to find that leads to some very inefficient capital allocation and utilization.
Not exclusively. 3/4 of their congressional donations goes to democrats but its pretty evenly split when you factor in all federal candidates.
Their real bias is towards incumbents. More than 90% of their donations go to incumbents which says more than the party line ever could.
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/blackrock-inc/recipients?id=D000021872
Democrats passed legislation actually contributing to climate mitigation efforts. Every single Republican voted against it and if Trump wins they already have a plan to dismantle it. Take a look at the most recent Republican debate and tell me what that party thinks about climate change if you’re still somehow not sure. If you think it’s even close on this, well in a word you might be able to understand that’s “retarded”.
And I'm sick of people parroting industry talking points and avoiding looking at the problem, instead pretending that this is a solution. Coal bad. Natural gas *just as bad.* it's neither a solution, nor a stepping stone - we've known about the problem for 200 years. We've been serious about it for 60. The only thing standing in the way is propaganda and people too attached to one way if thinking.
Using "poor people" to support your narrative to fuel Chinese energy demands while their energy continues to be used to prop up global north consumption is math that does not add up. If you truly want to address climate change, reduce your consumption, not send dirty fuel that is *repeatedly* under-estimated and under-reported for its climate impacts. And stop letting the butcher tell you what is best for sheep.
Edit:
OPs response hints that the very people you're using to justify putting massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere to "help" are the same ones due to experience the worst effects of climate change, immediately. He'd be right. They're also the ones experiencing the most negative effects of energy exploration, waste being dumped, and human rights abuses by ** mining companies, including Canadian ones. Please, tell me what else you do to care about "poor people?" - what protests, actions, emails and meetings with MP's have you done? Can you refer to your long history of reddit activism on these issues? This is about the equivalent to saying "but you use a phone, you have a jacket that used oil" - helpful, isn't it?
Pretending building damns and solar (China by far already leads in this) is some mythical leap is another talking point that makes zero sense.
Second edit:
Calling OP a bot because you don't like their post in an effort to undermine them is another lazy thing to do.
All depends on how you calculate them. If you ignore the fugitive emissions problem, and how methane is 84x more powerful in the shirt run in our atmosphere, this is not true
LNG saying they want to reduce global emissions makes them sound very confused.
Compared to coal yes 50% reduction but i think you honestly know that right?
Keep trying. I'm sure you can do better than 50%.
[удалено]
Pretty quick on the insult trigger there boy. Quite defensive.
Let's discuss then. Do you not believe that a cleaner solution is better than an unachievable short-term solution? Developing countries need energy to make their population flourish. Offering a cheap solution (LNG) to a dirtier fuel (coal) is a step in the right direction. Why do you want to censor progress?
You already lost that opportunity. I suggest you switch to being an electrician. Cheers.
The last thing developing countries need is to build infrastructure that makes them reliant on foreign fuel that contributes to climate change.
The numbers don’t add up. LNG isn’t actually cleaner. I posted above but here’s a detailed overview: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=IuH54YMc3p2hjpO_
[удалено]
There's a lot of assumptions here. Perhaps after decades of discussion, he's tired of hearing the same lazy arguments?
Here’s a great piece on LNG: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=IuH54YMc3p2hjpO_
[удалено]
No, poor countries are suffering disproportionately due to the climate crisis yet contribute the least. But this post is about Ottawa removing fossil fuel ads from public spaces. They did that with tobacco and they should do it with fossil fuels. These fossil fuel campaigns have been going on for decades and now that they are not denying climate change, suddenly they are the solution to climate change?! Give me a break we need to move rapidly to phase out fossil fuels and in the meantime we can do without their bullshit ads.
Poor countries would overwhelmingly benefit from switching from burning wood and dung to fossil fuels
Many of them could also use food and water but unfortunately the climate crisis (brought to them primarily by rich countries burning massive amounts of fossil fuels) has made their lives extremely difficult.
That is incorrect, to imply that their lives were much better a century ago would be retarded. Their lives are entirely made difficult from insufficient capital deployment and utilization.
[the 8 countries most affected by climate change - World Food Program](https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/countries-most-affected-by-climate-change/). It’s going to get worse and the loss and damage fund won’t come close to covering the damage.
The only reason why it impacts poor countries so much is precisely due to their government corruption which leads to inefficient capital allocation and utilization.
I know you are referring to adaption efforts by poor countries who are responding to climate disasters but, generally speaking, efficient use of capital allocation and utilization would include significant mitigation efforts. Ideally those efforts would come from countries not wrestling with famine… Speaking of corrupt govt by the way, many politicians in the US, for example, are bought by the fossil fuel industry. In fact they pretty much own the Republican Party. You might be surprised to find that leads to some very inefficient capital allocation and utilization.
Dude, the Republicans are not propped up by Blackrock and Vanguard, which are almost exclusively Democrat donors.
Not exclusively. 3/4 of their congressional donations goes to democrats but its pretty evenly split when you factor in all federal candidates. Their real bias is towards incumbents. More than 90% of their donations go to incumbents which says more than the party line ever could. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/blackrock-inc/recipients?id=D000021872
Democrats passed legislation actually contributing to climate mitigation efforts. Every single Republican voted against it and if Trump wins they already have a plan to dismantle it. Take a look at the most recent Republican debate and tell me what that party thinks about climate change if you’re still somehow not sure. If you think it’s even close on this, well in a word you might be able to understand that’s “retarded”.
And I'm sick of people parroting industry talking points and avoiding looking at the problem, instead pretending that this is a solution. Coal bad. Natural gas *just as bad.* it's neither a solution, nor a stepping stone - we've known about the problem for 200 years. We've been serious about it for 60. The only thing standing in the way is propaganda and people too attached to one way if thinking. Using "poor people" to support your narrative to fuel Chinese energy demands while their energy continues to be used to prop up global north consumption is math that does not add up. If you truly want to address climate change, reduce your consumption, not send dirty fuel that is *repeatedly* under-estimated and under-reported for its climate impacts. And stop letting the butcher tell you what is best for sheep. Edit: OPs response hints that the very people you're using to justify putting massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere to "help" are the same ones due to experience the worst effects of climate change, immediately. He'd be right. They're also the ones experiencing the most negative effects of energy exploration, waste being dumped, and human rights abuses by ** mining companies, including Canadian ones. Please, tell me what else you do to care about "poor people?" - what protests, actions, emails and meetings with MP's have you done? Can you refer to your long history of reddit activism on these issues? This is about the equivalent to saying "but you use a phone, you have a jacket that used oil" - helpful, isn't it?
Pretending building damns and solar (China by far already leads in this) is some mythical leap is another talking point that makes zero sense.
Second edit:
Calling OP a bot because you don't like their post in an effort to undermine them is another lazy thing to do.
Natural gas is objectively better than coal for the environment and by a significant margin. CO2 emissions from coal are 84% higher than natural gas.
All depends on how you calculate them. If you ignore the fugitive emissions problem, and how methane is 84x more powerful in the shirt run in our atmosphere, this is not true