And here's the US per capita carbon dioxide emissions. It's already happening in the US and Europe, the decrease of per capita emissions. India and China are really what we the World should focus on. — ssu

China and India both have nearly x5 the population of the US. Yet China has under twice the amount of emissions as the US whilst India produces less than half that that the US does.

Out of the top 20 Indonesia, India and Brasil are extremely low per capita. The US is in no position to pat themselves on the back or point the finger at India or China. Such a thing is ridiculous as China is around on par with the UK AND has the ability to make sweeping changes overnight due to their authoritarian regime.

The only country I see making significant progress in emissions cuts is China. I’m not some china loving bootlicker but it’s undeniable how they’ve stuck to their pledges. A mixed economy probably helps

The US is in no position to pat themselves on the back or point the finger at India or China. Such a thing is ridiculous as China is around on par with the UK AND has the ability to make sweeping changes overnight due to their authoritarian regime. — I like sushi

Finger pointing doesn't work. It only irritates people. The blame game is simply stupid. Far more important is a) change in energy policy and b) invest in R&D and changing infrastructure & power production into non-fossil fuel alternatives. And I'll just repeat it once again: to counter climate change, it is the top 10 largest economies that matter and that growth in the developing countries happens with using non-fossil fuel energy. That is possible when renewable energy continues to get the investment as it has gotten as already the prices have dramatically dropped. Little countries don't matter so much.

That the carbon emissions in the US are decreasing is in my view a good thing.

As I in the other Climate Change mentioned, the role of energy policy can be seen from the example of France or Sweden. France consumes electricity 10th most in the World, but in carbon dioxide emissions the country is at number 19. Reason: France depends a lot on nuclear energy. Sweden's electricity consumption is 28th largest, however in carbon emissions the country is at 63rd place.

(One of the worst ways to produce electricity, but in many places the only solution: using personal power generators that run on diesel & gas. Yet in many countries the only way to get reliable power. Nigeria has more power generators than cars.)

.

I chose "very unlikely." Based solely on my observations of homo sapiens.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. We may have already completed that most unhelpful achievement.

Expect to become poorer and learn to live simple and consume little. — unenlightened

This is a critical part of the solution about which one hears almost nothing. The economic status quo has to give way to economic contraction (in terms of volumes produced and consumed, as well as the kinds of materials). The immediate effect of contraction will be economic depression, probably severe and long, until a new, reduced equilibrium is reached. Given resource redistribution, retraction could be achieved quite sustainably and humanely. Resource redistribution will of course be resisted, as in "over my dead body".

I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. That is, no status quo anywhere is safe or untouchable. — tim wood

Climate-displacement is going to be a touchstone for all kinds of disruption, everywhere.

the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area. — I like sushi

Actually humanitarian billionaires? Dream on.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes. — Bitter Crank

Well that's your problem: you are being reasonable and looking at the evidence.

I think it's important to keep in mind that nothing's set in stone until it happens, and there is plenty of climate science activism. Quite a lot, actually. But it's not enough. This is so crazy that you have countries like Australia pledging neutrality by 2050 and Saudi Arabia by 2060. That's 20 and 30 years too late, respectively.

US, China and others too, everybody really, minus a few scattered countries. Nothing against Australians or Saudi's here, it's simply that governments and business as you point out, aren't taking this seriously enough. By the time they do, it's going to be too late to mitigate the worst of it.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. — Bitter Crank

Those things you mention could happen in a quick transition, sure. But if we don't do it quickly, it's just going to be brutal beyond words.

Still, we keep the pressure up, however we can and hope something big happens that changes the situation accordingly. There's nothing else I can see that can be done.

Will it be enough? It's an open question, which is quickly coming to a close.

If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. — Bitter Crank

Well Bitter, I think you are the age that remembers the 1970's quite well.

A lot has changed in the World since the 1970's, so a lot can change also in the next 50 years. Even more quicker. We likely won't be seeing the 2070's, but I'm still optimistic. In general.

I wish I had optimism, but I do agree we can change rapidly. Change is a real boogey man for those who fancy themselves "risk-taking, bootstrapping, individualist, entrepreneurs." They won't invest without guarantees from big government. That's why they need to be ignored and put on the back shelf to sooth each other's egos, confirm their biases, and dab each other's tears. Meanwhile, government and the real risk-takers, with spine and balls, just invent the car and let the cowards moan over their stock-pile of buggy whips.

In other words, ignore the apocalyptic whining from those with vested interests. Kick them to the unemployment line and go boldly into the future. We'd be surprised at how fast the economy will adjust and we move on. But that takes a leader. Like Gretta Thunberg, Bernie Sanders, AOC and their counterparts around the world. Nobody wants to follow girls, women and old Jewish socialists. People like the comfort of good honest salt-of-the-earth, hard working men-of-the-people white men like Joe Mansion and Mitch McConnel. After all, they are looking out for our best interests. Carry on, people.

it's just going to be brutal beyond words — Manuel

There's nothing else I can see that can be done — Manuel

Yes, both.

Here's an interesting fact: There are about 1.4 BILLION cars on the world's roads. Producing and fueling these billion+ autos was / is a major contributor to global warming. The only area we MIGHT get rid of vehicles in the next 10 years is Antarctica (but don't hold your breath).

1). Asia: 518 million vehicles on the road -- 0.14 vehicles per capita
2). Europe: 419 million vehicles -- 0.52 vehicles per capita
3). North America: 350 million vehicles -- 0.71 vehicles per capita
4). South America: 83 million vehicles -- 0.22 vehicles per capita
5). Middle East: 49 million vehicles -- 0.18 vehicles per capita
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles -- 0.05 vehicles per capita
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles

There just HAS to be a better idea than replacing 1.4 billion cars powered by internal combustion engines with 1.4 billion cars powered by wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. We can not conger up 1.4 billion cars and the means to power them electrically without causing further damage to an already ailing world. It isn't the case that what's good for Tesla is good for the world. We used to think that what was good for GM was good for the USA.

Part of @Unenlightened's "poorer and learn to live simple and consume little" will be doing without a car, electric or combusted. Therefore, mass transit or walk. Americans especially find the idea of using mass transit every day bizarre and/or distasteful. We will have to get over that. No flying around for meetings, or lounging on the beach, either.

Mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public undoubtedly helps keep the average consumer quiet about the planet’s greatest polluter, lest they feel and/or be publicly deemed hypocritical. Meanwhile, neoliberals and conservatives remain preoccupied with vocally criticizing one another for their relatively trivial politics and diverting attention away from some of the planet's greatest polluters, where it should and needs to be sharply focused.

Industry and fossil-fuel friendly governments can tell when a very large portion of the populace is too tired and worried about feeding/housing themselves or their family, and the virus-variant devastation still being left in COVID-19’s wake — all while on insufficient income — to criticize them for whatever environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable. (In fact, until a few weeks ago, I had not heard Greta’s name in the mainstream corporate news-media since COVID-19 hit the world.) Needless to say, big polluters most likely will not be made to account for their environmental damage while they're already paying out (kickbacks?) to big politicians' election budgets, etcetera. And who knows what else?

As individual consumers, far too many of us still recklessly behave as though throwing non-biodegradable garbage down a dark chute, or pollutants flushed down toilet/sink drainage pipes or emitted out of elevated exhaust pipes or spewed from sky-high jet engines and very tall smoke stacks — even the largest toxic-contaminant spills in rarely visited wilderness — can somehow be safely absorbed into the air, water, and land (i.e. out of sight, out of mind); like we’re inconsequentially dispensing of that waste into a black-hole singularity, in which it’s compressed into nothing.

Collectively, we need environmentally conscious and active young people, especially those approaching or reaching voting age. In contrast, the dinosaur electorate who have been voting into high office consecutive mass-pollution promoting or complicit/complacent governments for decades are gradually dying off thus making way for voters who fully support a healthy Earth thus populace.

Mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public — FrankGSterleJr

The larger public has never had much say in how major new technologies will be deployed. "The People" were not crying out for crude oil. It was people like John D. Rockefeller who decided that his fortune could be made in petroleum. It wasn't the general public who decided that individual cars were going to be the only way to get around. You can thank GM, Ford, et al. They made the decision that America run on cars.

The public has basic needs they have to meet, and corporations provide it, quite often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

It isn't the public that is addicted to fossil fuels, it is major corporations.

It's not the politicians who are making the difference. And not those apocalyptic whiners or those that the media has lifted on a pedestal to preach about climate change with religious fervor using the new lithurgy like you mentioned.

True change happens from the masses of people that we do not know or hear about. The engineers, the scientists, the inventors and those leading the companies and research groups making the change. Those doing the real answer of humanity to the problem are unknown to us and perhaps history will remember them later. We just assume our leaders are so important because they say they are.

Children tackling the environment brick by brick in 10 steps ? Who will listen ?

Lego issues Cop26 handbook by children on how to tackle climate crisis
Toymaker’s instructions for a better world target policy chiefs ahead of global climate summit

Nearly half of the children told researchers they thought about the environment once a week, while one in 10 thought about it every day. Global heating was their No 1 concern.

Lego is touting it as its most ambitious build to date, but rather than many pages of instructions, the toymaker’s latest handbook offers only 10 steps.

The booklet is not for a physical model, however. Instead it offers “building instructions for a better world” ahead of the crucial Cop26 climate talks that start in Glasgow this Sunday.

The “10 requests” of policymakers are based on research and workshops conducted with more than 6,000 children aged eight to 18 from around the world.
Mocked up like a Lego instruction booklet, the guide distils children’s views into a to-do list that will be handed out to delegates at Cop26.
— Guardian: Cop26 Handbook by Children

• Reduce pollution and waste.
• Increase the focus on protecting nature.
• Change laws and regulations around sustainability.
• Stop ignoring the problem: do more.
• Educate people of all ages.
• Introduce programmes to reduce emissions.
• Cooperate internationally to share knowledge and solutions.
• Leaders, change your own behaviour and set examples.
• Invest more in protecting the environment.
• Help people and future generations.

Easier said than done...
but hope the delegates at least listen to the voice and concerns of children :hearts:

LESLEY DUNCAN | SING CHILDREN SING | Charity Single 1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4KRukPmfhU

From climate crisis to anti-racism, more and more corporations are taking a stand. But if it’s only done because it’s good for business, the fires will keep on burning
by Carl Rhodes

...15 March 2019 marked the day that 1.4 million children turned out at locations around the world, on “strike” from school in support of action against the climate crisis.

In Australia, the strikes were especially targeted at the government’s dismal record of inaction, with many politicians being climate-change deniers. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, was vocal in his criticism of the strikes. He wanted students to stay in school instead of engaging in democratic protest.

His public statement said: “I want children growing up in Australia to feel positive about their future, and I think it is important we give them that confidence that they will not only have a wonderful country and pristine environment to live in, that they will also have an economy to live in as well.I don’t want our children to have anxieties about these issues.”...
--------
...It is true that at their most benign, corporate gestures in support of progressive causes are simply marketing initiatives to take advantage of changing public sentiments. At its most dangerous, however, we are witnessing corporations muscling in to take over political power that was once the exclusive domain of the state – not just by lobbying government and influencing policy, but by directly funding political initiatives and engaging with citizens on matters of public concern.

Corporations are not just trying to influence politics, they appear to be trying to take the place of politicians. Either way, the self-interest of the corporation remains paramount.
— Guardian: Useless gestures from Corporate Social Responsibility

So, will it take more strikes, what kind ?
Pepsi ads of children singing... or suffocating?

I don’t want our children to have anxieties about these issues. — Guardian: Useless gestures from Corporate Social Responsibility

Well, they do have anxieties about these issues, rightly so, and our inaction fuels these anxieties. Kids never fully trusted grown-ups, but now they have a very good reason to feel betrayed by grown-ups. Their future is sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Dollar, Molloch style.

Following yesterday's Budget, this cartoon:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/oct/27/martin-rowson-on-rishi-sunaks-age-of-optimism-budget-cartoon

Excellent BTL comments. This one a stand-out:

Wednesday’s budget took a flagrant sideswipe at Cop26. No, more than that, it poked it in the eye.

To not specifically address Climate Change, a soon-to-be-bigger threat to life than the pandemic.

To reduce the cost of internal flights, while doing nothing to make the much cleaner rail travel less expensive or more viable.

To fail to substantially increase the cost of international air travel, with a tax in rease that will barely be noticed by those who can afford to fly far.

We could undoubtedly have raised significant sums by getting tougher with fines on serial polluters. There could have been a spectrum of measures that both raised revenue to address future climate resilience while penalising offending businesses that take short cuts, pollute or mislead.

Opportunity lost.

This was undoubtedly a political act, perhaps a show of defiance to Boris Johnson, perhaps a nod to the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, but however you look at it, coming moments before Britain once more attempts to appear Global in hosting a Cop with great achievements, this budget totally undermines Britain’s credibility on Climate together with any remaining authority on green issues we may otherwise have had. — Guardian: Cartoon and Comment re Shit Budget

Well said by 'WhatEnlightenMeant' :sparkle:

Well, they do have anxieties about these issues, rightly so, and our inaction fuels these anxieties. — Olivier5

Exactly. Growing anxieties about a whole host of problems...for us all.
It's almost like nobody cares.

It's almost like nobody cares. — Amity

Except them kids...

Except them kids... — Olivier5

And musicians and anyone paying careful attention...or suffering NOW the destruction of their world. *

The Concerned. The Past, Present and Future challenges ahead.

As Cop26 opens in Glasgow, we provide the soundtrack, ranging from Gojira’s metal fury to gorgeous environmental paeans by Childish Gambino, Neil Young and Joni Mitchell
by Alexis Petridis. — Guardian: Soundtrack to Cop26

The 20 Greatest - from different decades and diverse genres.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/oct/28/the-greatest-songs-about-the-climate-crisis-ranked
--------

*
We can’t live like this’: climate shocks rain down on Honduras’s poorest.

Winter Amaya, 37, with his wife Luisa Mendoza, 31, in the makeshift home they share with their three children, after their home in another part of Chapagua was swept away by the River Aguán during Hurricane Eta. Photograph: Daniele Volpe/The Guardian

Rural communities like Chapagua that have done least to stoke the climate crisis barely have time to recover from one disaster before another hits...

It’s not just that the climate is increasingly chaotic. In recent years a wave of environmentally destructive megaprojects – including dams, tourist resorts, mines and African palm plantations – has exacerbated the situation, leading to worse flooding and water shortages.

Around 2008, African palm magnates redirected the mighty Aguán river to help irrigate their plantations. Every year, as it settled into its new course, rains and landslides shifted it further, leaving some communities dangerously close to the river while others were left without water.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/28/honduras-climate-crisis-floods-hurricanes-poor-community

Well, they do have anxieties about these issues, rightly so, and our inaction fuels these anxieties. Kids never fully trusted grown-ups, but now they have a very good reason to feel betrayed by grown-ups. Their future is sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Dollar, Molloch style. — Olivier5

I remember from my childhood what kind of bullshit propaganda was fed to us as children by the "progressive" environmentalists. My educative parents bought these children books for me warning of the perils of pollution, as environtalism was known back then. Of course the real hysteria back then in the 70's and especially 80's was nuclear war and oh boy, did they want to scare us children with that. Those images of burn victims from Hiroshima did look scary for a young boy. And of course, that the US had dropped the atomic bombs wasn't forgotten, Oh no! (Somehow the "progressive" forgot the Soviet Union from the equation) I remember that in my childhood I got very confused and negative image of the US, thanks to leftist progressives in the media and the educational sector. There was hardly anything positive about the US in the media, while Soviet Union was promoted and talked with respect. But then I got the chance to be in the US and wow! It was so different from the depiction given by the leftists. Seattle Washington was a very nice place with friendly people and I really enjoyed a lot my time there, which made my country to look gloomy and an unhappy place with rather unfriendly people.

But coming back to the environmental educative books for children. First it was condescendingly naive, of course, as the target audience were simple children. There were the evil corporations billowing smoke because, they just were to billow perilous smoke and chemicals to the environment, and the solution given in the book was to put filters on the smokestacks and dig the ugly factories underground. Perhaps the filters part was true. But then as now, the real evil was capitalism, especially American capitalism.

The propaganda seems to continue with a similar tone as back then.

So you were exposed to books critical of the US as a kid? Shocking! I don't know how you managed to survived such deep narcissic wound.

Climate change was already well studied and non-controversial when I was at school, in the 1970s and 80s. It was not propaganda at all; on the contrary, its denial was propaganda and still is.

If they save us, then we need to do whatever it takes to encourage others to emulate them. That will be making a virtue of necessity.

...I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. — tim wood

Just out of curiosity, Tim, in what way do you view the issue of dp's as an adjunct to climate remediation? Is this simply the type of "pork" (to use a legislative term for lack of a better) that gets amended to any negotiation? It would seem to me that bringing relatively poor people into a societal situation within which they can become as strongly carbon-positive polluters as the rest of us "first worlders" might be antithetical to climate remediation. In short (and I know it sounds terrible): from an environmental perspective, the world's poor seem less haful where they are, where their relative lack of resources limits the environmental harm that they can do. Not that I don't feel badly about poverty and war...(fer chrissake, I am one of the poor, and here in America, to boot!)

That will be making a virtue of necessity. — James Riley

Technology can help. Hydrogen-powered planes would be nice to have for instance, or fusion power.

But other things can help and should be made virtue of, such as frugality. Do we really need to eat meat everyday, to drive for hours everyday, or to fly every week (for some)? Do we want to? Being a bit more conscious and careful about what resources we consume would help. Not to say that people aren't; the idea of change via consumer information
and behavior change is gaining momentum.

I agree, sort of. But in a capitalist system, if I conserve a gallon of gas, I just increased the supply, reducing the price, stimulating demand so some asshole can roll-coal with his gas guzzler, one more mile. Government action is needed to force that guzzler off the road while the owner screams about his rights.

I could not agree more. But I think nobody is off the hook. Ultimately production follows demand.

Part of Unenlightened's "poorer and learn to live simple and consume little" will be doing without a car, electric or combusted. Therefore, mass transit or walk. Americans especially find the idea of using mass transit every day bizarre and/or distasteful. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I'm not actually advocating misery; imagine removing all the cars from the roads. Imagine the peaceful environment that results. Add back plenty of quiet, clean cheap electric busses, and trams. Society saves billions in the cost of cars, and can afford for transport to be very cheap. It's interesting to consider what one expects to have privately and what one expects to share. Perhaps instead of a car, everyone needs a garden or allotment. Travel independence or food independence?

What I want to emphasise is that the things folk find impossible to contemplate giving up are very very recent necessities, that many people have done without for many centuries and many people still live without. And that we are not noticeably happier for our private transport or our central heating. On the contrary, we have a worse diet, worse health, more stress and an impoverished environment.

Poorer is better.

If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made.
— Bitter Crank
Well Bitter, I think you are the age that remembers the 1970's quite well.

A lot has changed in the World since the 1970's, so a lot can change also in the next 50 years. Even more quicker. We likely won't be seeing the 2070's, but I'm still optimistic. In general. — ssu

It's Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion.

If you plan x time for doing something, it will take x time (and then some) to do it.