The conversation about historical injustices and climate liabilities between global north and global south is just toxic without substantialising the discussion. some critical points: - Is it the fault of the people in the geographical (not global) north that they cause far larger emissions due to heating requirements for staying alive? Does Hickel and Fanning's framework of climate justice require the people of Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Russia to compensate the south for not wanting to freeze to death too? - Related to the previous point, did people in the global north ever have the option to move south to better climates? What gives one collective of people the right to live in objectively better climates? Fundamental question also for the future. Yes, i am pro open-borders for all climate refugees. No, I don't require them to adapt to the culture of my country to get the right to do so. - How is the burden of technological development taken into account in Hickel's and Fanning's climate liability allotment theories? India and China are industrialising with access to 65% efficient gas turbines. Europe started its industrialisation with 0.1% efficient coal steam engines. The development from 0.1% to 65% efficiency heat engines was a centurial effort of engineering marvel. If you adapt the invention, accepting its utility, what gives you the right to FULLY separate yourself from the side-effects of the process that created the invention? - Population. The carrying capacity of the earth is a function of the energy flow from the sun. The carrying capacity of a country is therefore a function of its area and climate. Having children just as much a political choice as is the overconsumption of resources that lead only to marginal increases in positive social effects. This is completely ignored in Hickel's and Fanning's theories. Any framework claiming to talk about "justice" has to relate the total climate impact I = population P x affluence A x technology T to the carrying capacity of the political boundaries of the country.
@@curedent6086 obviously you have to simplify in youtube comments. no one is gonna read a 10 page graphless essay in this format. energy use in buildings is 17.5% of greenhouse gas emissions today and it could have been a bigger share in the past. the exact number isn't of interest but rather the order of magnitude. it is large enough to be relevant. i have no doubt that Hickel and Fanning take into account deforestation in south due to western consumption, but i very much doubt that they consider northerners (westerners in global south framework) not wanting to freeze to death at all. is that just? hell no. the exact formulation of carrying capacity isn't that relevant to the argument, indisputable bottom line is that we live on a planet with limited resources. resources that give us valuable experiences like literature, art, leisure, nature, wildlife, entertainment, and the list goes on. if we could choose to populate the earth to the brim, killing all nature and wildlife with it, and with everyone living in minimal subsistence misery - would that be a great world? surely not. would i prefer a world where we left some of the biosphere to other lifeforms, and one that also grants the people of the earth an existence that is a little more gentle? absolutely. how is that done? by having a smaller population. a child in kindergarten would understand this. large populations already grant countries more power than they deserve. why would we further build a framework that grants them more rights/excuses to abuse the planet by calling it "justice"? whether the political actor is a region, a country, or a global world community, there NEEDS to be some mechanism that balances the TOTAL CONSUMPTION with the TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY of the region/country/world. does Hickel's and Fanning's framework do that?
@@curedent6086 i think that you are just grasping for counter-arguments for the sake of being the devils advocate, since u show 0 interest to the general idea and just focus on pedantic nonsense. why is (some large share of) 17.5% irrelevant? how do you believe people in the northern region lived up until 1900? with energy abundance and luxuries to waste it on? wake up. they were subsistence tenant peasants trying to survive a cold harsh climate where agriculture was barely possible. shocking news, white people aren't to blame for everything in the world. especially the ones that weren't colonized and especially the ones that were colonized by other white people.
@@curedent6086 Case study Nordics: - Space and water heating is 80% of household/residential energy consumption. Under 50% in Portugal, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, Albania. - Household/residential sector represents ~18% of gross inland energy consumption on EU level. Likely higher in Nordics. Both easily findable EU sources. Can't post because youtube moderation. What exactly do you think that nordic tenant peasants were using their energy for other than heating and feeding themselves? Clearly these numbers are not irrelevant. Can you motivate why they are irrelevant in your opinion?
@@curedent6086 I don't understand why you are getting so irrationally defensive. Please specify where my argument implies that countries in the global south shouldn't get a JUST compensation for underdevelopment due to (climate) colonialism. And since you love throwing around accusations of colonialism, let's establish some clarity on the topic. Only a subset of the modern "western" world seriously participated in the traditional colonialism of the French/British/Spanish/Belgian/Portuguese/Dutch. That varieté belongs exclusively to you, no need to try to drag us into your exclusive club. If you want to make claims of modern economic neo-colonialism of the wider west, which "marxist-leninist" China is also very much a part, then use the correct language for it. The actual problem of the discussion, as was clearly presented right from the beginning, is that the framework of Hickel & Fanning does not account for realities that a kindergartener understands. 20% is more than plenty relevant when Fanning starts making claims about the hundreds of trillions of dollars that the people of today have to pay for their (in varying degrees) own and ancestors sins. Do you have your fair share of Fanning's 20-30+ trillion dollars of climate debt in spare? I don't and I'm not selling myself and my mother into serfdom because our ancestors were damned by others to subsistence survival in the crappier climates of the earth. Since you have no qualms with playing god, why don't you provide your stone tablets for how many square meters and indoor degrees people in the north have and have had a natural right to?
@@curedent6086 Editing away bad manners, tone and accusations, check. Asking for exact citations of said overstepping, check. Getting pedantic about side remarks while ignoring the real conversation, after being asked not to do so, check. Finishing with ad hoc nonsense, check. I once again ask you to stay on topic, how many square meters of how much heated space is the northern european allowed, since you repeatedly make claims of houses being too big and too warm. Should similar restrictions be applied to the other human beings of the world?
T'aurais du lui demander de mettre ta photo à droite de son écran pour qu'il ne soit pas face caméra tout le long de son intervention. La prochaine fois...
The conversation about historical injustices and climate liabilities between global north and global south is just toxic without substantialising the discussion. some critical points:
- Is it the fault of the people in the geographical (not global) north that they cause far larger emissions due to heating requirements for staying alive? Does Hickel and Fanning's framework of climate justice require the people of Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Russia to compensate the south for not wanting to freeze to death too?
- Related to the previous point, did people in the global north ever have the option to move south to better climates? What gives one collective of people the right to live in objectively better climates? Fundamental question also for the future. Yes, i am pro open-borders for all climate refugees. No, I don't require them to adapt to the culture of my country to get the right to do so.
- How is the burden of technological development taken into account in Hickel's and Fanning's climate liability allotment theories? India and China are industrialising with access to 65% efficient gas turbines. Europe started its industrialisation with 0.1% efficient coal steam engines. The development from 0.1% to 65% efficiency heat engines was a centurial effort of engineering marvel. If you adapt the invention, accepting its utility, what gives you the right to FULLY separate yourself from the side-effects of the process that created the invention?
- Population. The carrying capacity of the earth is a function of the energy flow from the sun. The carrying capacity of a country is therefore a function of its area and climate. Having children just as much a political choice as is the overconsumption of resources that lead only to marginal increases in positive social effects. This is completely ignored in Hickel's and Fanning's theories. Any framework claiming to talk about "justice" has to relate the total climate impact I = population P x affluence A x technology T to the carrying capacity of the political boundaries of the country.
@@curedent6086 obviously you have to simplify in youtube comments. no one is gonna read a 10 page graphless essay in this format.
energy use in buildings is 17.5% of greenhouse gas emissions today and it could have been a bigger share in the past. the exact number isn't of interest but rather the order of magnitude. it is large enough to be relevant. i have no doubt that Hickel and Fanning take into account deforestation in south due to western consumption, but i very much doubt that they consider northerners (westerners in global south framework) not wanting to freeze to death at all. is that just? hell no.
the exact formulation of carrying capacity isn't that relevant to the argument, indisputable bottom line is that we live on a planet with limited resources. resources that give us valuable experiences like literature, art, leisure, nature, wildlife, entertainment, and the list goes on. if we could choose to populate the earth to the brim, killing all nature and wildlife with it, and with everyone living in minimal subsistence misery - would that be a great world? surely not. would i prefer a world where we left some of the biosphere to other lifeforms, and one that also grants the people of the earth an existence that is a little more gentle? absolutely. how is that done? by having a smaller population. a child in kindergarten would understand this.
large populations already grant countries more power than they deserve. why would we further build a framework that grants them more rights/excuses to abuse the planet by calling it "justice"? whether the political actor is a region, a country, or a global world community, there NEEDS to be some mechanism that balances the TOTAL CONSUMPTION with the TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY of the region/country/world. does Hickel's and Fanning's framework do that?
@@curedent6086 i think that you are just grasping for counter-arguments for the sake of being the devils advocate, since u show 0 interest to the general idea and just focus on pedantic nonsense. why is (some large share of) 17.5% irrelevant? how do you believe people in the northern region lived up until 1900? with energy abundance and luxuries to waste it on? wake up. they were subsistence tenant peasants trying to survive a cold harsh climate where agriculture was barely possible. shocking news, white people aren't to blame for everything in the world. especially the ones that weren't colonized and especially the ones that were colonized by other white people.
@@curedent6086 Case study Nordics:
- Space and water heating is 80% of household/residential energy consumption. Under 50% in Portugal, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, Albania.
- Household/residential sector represents ~18% of gross inland energy consumption on EU level. Likely higher in Nordics.
Both easily findable EU sources. Can't post because youtube moderation.
What exactly do you think that nordic tenant peasants were using their energy for other than heating and feeding themselves? Clearly these numbers are not irrelevant. Can you motivate why they are irrelevant in your opinion?
@@curedent6086 I don't understand why you are getting so irrationally defensive. Please specify where my argument implies that countries in the global south shouldn't get a JUST compensation for underdevelopment due to (climate) colonialism.
And since you love throwing around accusations of colonialism, let's establish some clarity on the topic. Only a subset of the modern "western" world seriously participated in the traditional colonialism of the French/British/Spanish/Belgian/Portuguese/Dutch. That varieté belongs exclusively to you, no need to try to drag us into your exclusive club. If you want to make claims of modern economic neo-colonialism of the wider west, which "marxist-leninist" China is also very much a part, then use the correct language for it.
The actual problem of the discussion, as was clearly presented right from the beginning, is that the framework of Hickel & Fanning does not account for realities that a kindergartener understands. 20% is more than plenty relevant when Fanning starts making claims about the hundreds of trillions of dollars that the people of today have to pay for their (in varying degrees) own and ancestors sins. Do you have your fair share of Fanning's 20-30+ trillion dollars of climate debt in spare? I don't and I'm not selling myself and my mother into serfdom because our ancestors were damned by others to subsistence survival in the crappier climates of the earth.
Since you have no qualms with playing god, why don't you provide your stone tablets for how many square meters and indoor degrees people in the north have and have had a natural right to?
@@curedent6086 Editing away bad manners, tone and accusations, check.
Asking for exact citations of said overstepping, check.
Getting pedantic about side remarks while ignoring the real conversation, after being asked not to do so, check.
Finishing with ad hoc nonsense, check.
I once again ask you to stay on topic, how many square meters of how much heated space is the northern european allowed, since you repeatedly make claims of houses being too big and too warm. Should similar restrictions be applied to the other human beings of the world?
T'aurais du lui demander de mettre ta photo à droite de son écran pour qu'il ne soit pas face caméra tout le long de son intervention. La prochaine fois...
Between to be cityzen of any country
I am cityzen of word limited
à la prochaine ' hâte de découvrir les applications concrètes et locales
Rich country have destroyed Environment for a century...