this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
193 points (99.0% liked)

News

22897 readers
3863 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The summit has sought to reframe the African continent, which has enormous amounts of clean energy minerals and renewable energy sources, as less of a victim of climate change driven by the world’s biggest economies and more of the solution.

But investment in the continent in exchange for the ability to keep polluting elsewhere has angered some in Africa who prefer to see China, the United States, India, the European Union and others rein in their emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

“We reject forced solutions on our land,” Priscilla Achakpa, founder of the Nigeria-based Women Environmental Programme, told summit participants on the event’s final day. She urged the so-called “Global North” to “remove yourself from the perspective of the colonial past.”

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] query@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There should be no offsets. Either don't pollute or pay a hefty tax proportional to the amount of pollution, those should be the options. If there are quotas, massively increased taxes past the quota, with no way of raising the quota.

Carbon storage should be an entirely separate matter, not something companies can buy into to excuse not optimizing what they're doing.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah we need net negative for a healthy planet

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rich countries/politicians only pay lip service to caring about the planet. The most important thing to them is being re-elected, and that won't happen if they remove subsidies for Big Oil/fracking projects or really invest in green infrastructure.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can change that. They focus on the re-election issues they do because that's what their voters seem to press for. They can't read our minds, they have to rely on talking to us and polls and shit. They don't care about these things though, they only care about what we say we vote for.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

They use propaganda. They don't have to read minds. Just have to distort the picture enough to subvert the will of the people.

The democratic deficit, that's the gap between what people want and what representatives do, is very high in the U.S.

It's lobbyists that have the ear of politicians, not the people.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The free market isn't going to solve this problem. It isn't profitable to solve climate change.

This is where Governments are meant to step in, to serve the best interests of the people... instead they're too busy bickering over bullshit, and giving themselves and their cronies handouts.

[–] KIM_JONG@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And corporations run the governments.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

India and China have essentially said they don't give a fuck and will keep burning coal till they run out of coal...

The other big contributer is shipping cheap junk from those same countries to the Western wealthier countries.

That we can do something about by slapping large tarrifs on all that sweatshop shit.

Do that and those countries will change their tune, because their own citizens are too poor for their economies to be self sufficient.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

China is investing $6 trillion in green energy initiatives.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-is-poised-to-transform-the-clean-energy-industry/#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Energy%20SuperPower,over%20the%20next%2020%20years.

Economically isolating your country and cutting off international trade is non-viable and hurts the poor the most.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

So after reading the article, there is no information as to what China is spending $6 trillion on. The vast majority of the article discusses how China is building a really long road and that they will be depending on coal until at least 2050.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/china-coal-plants-climate-goals-carbon

If you're impressed by your number, you just don't understand how big China is...

And tarrifs on cheap foreign profits is really the only way to stimulate internal production. Not sure where you were a few years ago, but COVID should have taught you why domestic production is important

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stimulating internal production is not a goal anyone should have - global isolation hurts citizens.

Bad things happening is not a reason to kneecap your economy.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, yeah...

Because the people working those sweatshops have such great lives too.

Those aren't "suicide nets" in iPhone factories, they're "communal hammocks".

And the countries that don't make anything anymore so they have crazy unemployment levels can just print money so their citizens don't starve too!

It's so easy, why isn't a smart person like you running the economy of every nation?

/s

At least lemmy still has a block button.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because the people working those sweatshops have such great lives too.

Their lives are demonstrably better than before those opportunities arrived, and the increased wealth enables governments to grow inclusive institutions that ban sweatshops and still benefit from the relative value of the US dollar to local currency

People with my views do run the economy. This is economic orthodoxy.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're the only one here advocating for globalism.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Globalism is an ideal scenario, yes.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're equivalency is saying that slaves had it better in America than they did in Africa?

Doooood. 🤮

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No I didn't bring up slavery at all, and equating paid jobs that do not exist until a company invests in a developing nation with slavery is disgustingly offensive.

Developing nations are developing because of outside investment, and equating that to the rape of their lands and people that was chattel slavery is a monstrous thing to do.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, you did. What else would you call a sweatshop?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sweatshops, while terrible working conditions, are paid labor and people seek out those jobs because the money is so much better than what they were doing before.

I am not pro sweatshop. International trade is so good for developing nations that even sweatshops are better than what they had. I'm all for treaties that straight up require investment capital to regulate that any foreign suppliers meet a certain level of safety and health regulations.

The reason that foreign investment in labor is profitable is not because of sweatshops but because of comparative advantage. An easy example is Mexico where the US dollar is currently worth 18 pesos, meaning you can pay a Mexican laborer 1/5th of what you pay an American and still are actually paying them more relative to their cost of living than an American.

This is true worldwide and is the essence of global trade, and it is impossible to call this a bad thing without just straight up saying you don't give a shit about the livelihood of the Global South.

Comparative advantage is the reason that standards of living are rising worldwide. This investment spurs local capital growth, grows institutions to be inclusive instead of extractive, and in the long term encourages democratic reforms.

The US should, and does when our President isn't a drooling imbecile, see global trade as a form of soft power and spreading of democracy.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Imagine if those US based companies paid the actual value to those workers and didn't steal their wages

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism trying to capitalism it's way out of a capitalism caused crisis. Classic.

[–] I_annoy_you@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

most polluting country is communist china.