Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

China is incentivizing density and that results in tens or hundreds of millions moving from the hinterlands to cities and that in turn requires massive build out of housing infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and more. The people get "richer" in the process but also results in massive carbon emissions (lots of concrete) and wealthier lifestyle.

When people move from an underdeveloped nation where their carbon footprint per person was 2.5MT/c to a developed country where they now contribute 8MT per person, that impacts emissions too. Now multiply by millions of migrants (either internal or international)

In fairness, you could ask the populace of the US, EU, JP, SK, etc. to cut their footprints by 50%, let's say, but neither they nor you realize what that would mean on the ground.

It's easier to ask someone who doesn't have something to give that up than the person who already has that thing. (Ask me to give up 10MM vs the person who has 10.2MM)

China's urban per capita emissions are growing slower than their national average (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-023-00084-2)

So are you proposing that we prevent the developing world from developing?

I think that statement is misleading because:

"...China whose 2010 urban per capita emissions are larger than the national value but with much slower growth. [It could be...] the result of an explicit policy to move high-emissions industries away from cities, trading-off urban and non-urban CO2 emission..."

I'm not proposing anything. What I'm saying is outside of magic, the options are limited. Get developed countries to degrade their economies or get developing countries to stymie their development or have all countries freeze their population growth via infertility of one form or another (obviously you can't ask them to reduce the current pops).

Tax emissions, incentivize density, and let the market work.

We have already made massive strides against this problem. Yes it will require some sacrifices (like wealthier nations helping developing nations to leapfrog into lower-emission technologies), but what is the alternative? We just sit here and die? It's a bit premature to have come to this conclusion.

So tax charcoal and wood used by the poorest of the poor too or are we allowing exceptions? What do we do about seasonal burnings some people engage in to prepare and fertilize their lands?

Yes we should disincentivize continuation of these practices and incentivize adoption of different practices.

No, we obviously shouldn’t be so extreme that we trigger famines. This isn’t even remotely necessary anyway given that the people you mention aren’t major polluters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com