Russia - General Discussion.

[contricusc]

Posts moved to appropriate thread.

Several points. First and foremost, the you're with us or against us line is typically not particularly productive. Even at the heights of the Cold War you had the unaligned movement. The truth is that expecting all countries to tow an arbitrary line is unrealistic. They won't. You add some interesting qualifiers. Do you think that if an unprovoked war is launched without the goal to annex territory, this is different? What if the war is "provoked"? Russia certainly claims the latter. Granted they didn't accuse Ukraine of a WMD program (oh wait they did... ).

As for playing by the same rules... invasion of Iraq? Oh sorry, that was provoked. By Saddam's WMD program clearly aimed at the US. Let me wave a vial around. The third world quite rightly doesn't see much difference between the behavior of Russia in Ukraine and western countries in other imperialist adventures. This is why they're on the fence. They've seen talk of playing by the same rules but every time those rules hurt the interests of the powerful countries, they find an excuse to get out of following them. Which is why much of the third world doesn't believe the talk of rules and don't see any special reason to unite with the west in their sanctions against Russia. Mpst of the third world doesn't see themselves threatened by Russia in any meaningful way. There is nothing Russia can really do to India or Brazil. Even to intervene in Syria required the consent of the Syrian government, and would have been basically impossible without it. The US on the other hand maintains the capability to intervene in almost any country on earth, and could probably occupy and hold for quite a significant length of time almost any of them too. Russia is also a valuable trading partner, and one that often provides competition to deals offered by other players. So the third world at large, while not happy about Russian aggression, don't feel threatened, don't feel a burning need to respond, and don't want to face the economic problems of passing sanctions against a major player in the world economy. This has been explained repeatedly by others in this thread.

Thanks for moving my post to the appropriate thread.

I do believe that the intention to annex territory makes a big difference when it comes to wars. Most wars in the post WW2 world order that involved big powers were fought for influence or regime change, not for terriotry annexation. Starting a war with the aim to annex territory brings us back to the pre WW2 world order where those who had enough power were subjugating others and were building empires. When a major power like Russia annexes territory, it re-opens the Pandora box of imperialism.

If the Russians had managed to overthrow the regime in Kyiv in a few weeks and place a puppet like Yanukovych back in power, I think the war would have been over and the West would have accepted the outcome, as it would have resembled the US invasion of Iraq. But once the Russians started to annex Ukrainian territories to the Russian Federation, any pretense that what they were doing was for the liberation of Ukrainians was gone. When the Ukrainians decided to fight and defend their country, the Kyiv leadership proved to be legitimate and the Russians to be imperialist invaders.

While the US second invation of Iraq was totally unjustified, the fact that the Iraquis didn’t put much resistance and were quick to celebrate the downfall of Saddam gave a little bit of legitimacy to the “regime change“ narrative. The US never tried to annex Iraqi territory.

What bothers me about the reaction of several developing countries regarding this war is the fact that former colonies are not supporting Ukraine, despite the fact that they already have the awful experience of being under an imperialist power. Ukraine’s fight for freedom and independence should ring a bell especially to those countries. If the likes of Britain, France, Germany or Japan could relate to Russia from a historical perspective (they all have a history of imperialism), I don’t understand how countries like Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, South Africa or Vietnam can be neutral about this. They should have supported Ukraine out of principle, not because of self interest.

The part about "tolerating" a lot from Brazil and India is particularly curious. Pollution is a problematic choice to put it mildly. If you look at pollution per person the 1st world leads by a hefty margin. And there is a strong correlation between CO2 emissions and quality of life. If the average American had to cut their CO2 emissions to those of the average Indian, what would that look like? Then there's the historic aspect. CO2 isn't just an annual number. There's also the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere. How much of it was put there by the industrializing of the current 1st world? How much did the 1st world profit from that? Now the third world has to not industrialize or do so much slower and more expensively even as the 1st world continues to out-pollute them on a per person basis? Curiouser and curiouser. I think your position here is either a neo-imperial one, the third world needs to do what's good for the first, or a profoundly ignorant one. If anything the third world has tolerated a lot from countries like the UK, France, the US.

I know about the per capita theory when it comes to pollution or CO2 emissions (two distinct things, as CO2 emmissions are not about pollution, but about the alleged warming effect on climate), and I don’t agree with it.

If we agree that we have a problem with global warming that comes from greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2 and CH4), as the world has mostly agreed at an international level (I don’t necessarily agree with this theory, but my personal opinion is irrelevant in this case), there are two logical scenarios to follow from here. The first scenario would be to decide that all countries should work on reducing their emmissions from current levels in order to stop the negative effects of CO2 and methane emmissions. The second scenario would be to just continue with business as usual because the economy and the wealth of people is more important than the potential climate changes.

In the first scenario, all countries should commit to stop investing in anything related to coal powered energy in the first place, and to work on reducing the emmission intensity of their economies. By emmission intensity, I mean the amount of emmissions per unit of economic output (which is generally measured by GDP, which is not evry relevant, but it is the best measure we have). If your economy has a high output per capita, it is natural to have higher emmissions per capita than an economy with low productivity. Countries with developed economies will of course have higher emissions per capita, but what matters is if their balance between output and emissions is efficient or not.

Here is a map of the world based on the carbon emission intensity of economies:

Carbon intensity: CO₂ emissions per dollar of GDP

Kilograms of CO₂ emitted per dollar of GDP. Fossil fuel and industry emissions are included. Land-use change emissions are not included. GDP data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.

ourworldindata.org

You will see that countries like Russia, China and South Africa re the worst offenders, while EU countries are among the cleanest.

In my opinion, it is absurd for countries like the UK, Netherlands or Germany to cripple their economies and standard of living while trying to reduce their emissions, while countries like China that are a lot more inefficient when it comes to the emission intensity of their economy continue to build coal power plants and have no emission reduction targets (they continue to raise their net emissions).

This is why I think the second scenario would be the more logical one for the West, where they would stop hurting themselves while fighting a war that cannot be won as long as much bigger countries continue to increase their emissions.

That’s what I meant when I said that the West has been tolerating too much from developing countries lately. The base of the emission target negotiations has been flawed from the start, and the West should have never accepted the standard of emissions per capita, as this argument makes China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia or Nigeria immune to any emission reduction target while placing the entire burden on the West.

 

[KipPotapych]

In regards to fence sitting I often wonder if it's not just a product of which side the foreign aid and cheap weapons hand outs come from that determines which way to lean.

Isn’t it like those who imposed sanctions on Russia represent about 70+ percent of the world’s economy (about 3 dozens of countries or so), but only about 15 (more or less) percent of the world population? Something like that? Sounds like we aren’t providing enough “hand outs” or “foreign aid”, being as rich as we are, no? Or maybe lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand?

 

[Vanquish]

Isn’t it like those who imposed sanctions on Russia represent about 70+ percent of the world’s economy (about 3 dozens of countries or so), but only about 15 (more or less) percent of the world population? Something like that? Sounds like we aren’t providing enough “hand outs” or “foreign aid”, being as rich as we are, no? Or maybe lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand?

Countries that get their military equipment from Russia or China will naturally not want to bite that hand, No? Or perhaps if China is building a new bridge for you I'd imagine you'd never vote in the UN against China. Could be wrong.

 

[contricusc]

The main difference between Ukraine and Iraq, among others, is that this happened to be “at the doorstep”, so to speak, a white European nation, invaded by a competitor/enemy/you pick. Justified? Hardly. But more so than Iraq ever was, as General Milley nicely outlined himself in the last paragraphed I highlighted in bold, no? If an American general can put it in a perspective, how else would you expect most of the world to see it?

But what does the Iraq invssion has to do with Ukraine’s invasion? If the US has done a bad thing in the past, does this justify Russia to do a bad thing in the present?

Why are countries/people who condemned the invasion of Iraq supporting Russia, or being neutral now?

At least when it comes to US allies who supported the wrongful invasion of Iraq, there is the excuse of realizing their mistake and changing their perspective to a more benign one. But for those who condemned the US in Iraq but are now indifferent about Russia in Ukraine, it is either that they changed their mind and are now more evil than in the past, or they are just hypocrites…

 

[Ananda]

When looking to carbon emissions, looking only on total emissions can be miss lead as countries with large population will have bigger total emissions. That is why many world bodies goes with Per capita emissions. It is more fair shown whose population give more pollution.

Also has to be calculate how much carbon accumulation one nation already put in atmosphere since Industrial Revolution. Why Industrial Revolution? Well because all human carbon footprint data shown jump in carbon footprint after Industrial Revolution.

"Third" world can give other arguments on that sense, why the "First" world should take first dive in this carbon footprint reduction. Simply put; "you already enjoy polluting the atmosphere longer then us". So you take the carbon footprint cut first.

In the end reducing carbon footprint only work if this is make sense to the business and economics. Eurozone can say they want to reduce carbon footprint, however after this war, their carbon utility increasing as some use more Coal then Gas for example (on economics reason). In short carbon footprint going down, if it makes economics incentive and calculations. Cynical perhaps, but that's human behaviors.

countries/people who condemned the invasion of Iraq supporting Russia, or being neutral now?

When US invade Iraq, many non western nations condemn US move, however they are still engaging US and Trade with US. When Russia invade Ukraine, they are also condemn Russia move, however they are also still engaging Russia and Trade with Russia.

So they are actually acting similar thing against US and against Russia. This is what sitting in the fence diplomacy means.

 

[jref]

At least when it comes to US allies who supported the wrongful invasion of Iraq, there is the excuse of realizing their mistake and changing their perspective to a more benign one.

In truth, these words are devoid of meaning. Where, for instance, is the ICC warrant for George Bush Jr? It is an intriguing question, for one could argue that American interventions in the Middle East created a power vacuum, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS and the displacement of millions who sought refuge in Europe at tremendous cost to their host countries. Consider also the millions of Afghan refugees, some of whom are my colleagues here in Sweden. Yet despite the millions affected by these policies, and the many closeted racists (who would naturally love to see less of the refugees) who support anti-immigration parties across Europe, I remain perplexed (with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable. The contrast with the enthusiastic embrace of white, Christian refugees from Ukraine, whose flags now fly in major city squares from Lisbon to Warsaw, offers a sobering view of the world in which we live.

There is also the question of what, exactly, countries that "take sides" and sanction Russia would gain. Would the world suddenly become free from Western military interventions? It seems unlikely. Too often, and well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, international law has proven to be nothing more than ink on paper.

I have said this before and will say it again: might makes right. The crux of the issue, however, is that this time, it is not the West's might that determines what is right.

 

[swerve]

..., I remain perplexed (with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable. The contrast with the enthusiastic embrace of white, Christian refugees from Ukraine, whose flags now fly in major city squares from Lisbon to Warsaw, offers a sobering view of the world in which we live....

Afghans & Middle Easterners arriving in the west are mostly young men. Same with those from Africa.

Ukrainian refugees are mostly women & children.

 

[jref]

Afghans & Middle Easterners arriving in the west are mostly young men. Same with those from Africa.

They make for good and affordable barbers, they service my car and their grocery shops help me keep some of my Wohlstand, as Germans say. Those opposing their arrival in Europe may use the fact that most of them are young men as an additional reason for disliking them. This reinforces my puzzlement (again, with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable for the chaos they have caused in the Middle East, which has led to the influx of these young men to Europe.

Furthermore, I have no connections whatsoever to Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine, or Russia.

 

[contricusc]

When looking to carbon emissions, looking only on total emissions can be miss lead as countries with large population will have bigger total emissions. That is why many world bodies goes with Per capita emissions. It is more fair shown whose population give more pollution.

Also has to be calculate how much carbon accumulation one nation already put in atmosphere since Industrial Revolution. Why Industrial Revolution? Well because all human carbon footprint data shown jump in carbon footprint after Industrial Revolution.

You probably didn’t see my other post when I mentioned about the emission intensity of economies. That is the real indicator that shows which countries are doing an effort to keep emissions low, and which countries are careless about their emissions.

Here’s a link where you will see how each country fares when it comes to the emission intensity of the economy:

CO2 intensity | Map World CO2 Intensity by region | Enerdata

Global CO2 intensity database. Enerdata provides you with updated year data, maps and analysis on CO2 intensity.

yearbook.enerdata.net

Of the bigger countries, the most emissions per unit of GDP are generated by Iran, Russia, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Canada. Those are the countries who should start cutting emissions first.

On a regional level, the most emission intense economies are the ones of the CIS countries and the ones in the Middle East. The least emission intensive economies are the ones of Europe and Latin America. This shows that Europe is already ahead of the pack when it comes to emissions and it should be the last to work on further reducing emissions. The biggest offenders should start first, and those are Iran, Russia and China (who would have thought?).

When US invade Iraq, many non western nations condemn US move, however they are still engaging US and Trade with US. When Russia invade Ukraine, they are also condemn Russia move, however they are also still engaging Russia and Trade with Russia.

So they are actually acting similar thing against US and against Russia. This is what sitting in the fence diplomacy means.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that they still trade with Russia, as it is in their own economic interest. What bother me is that they didn’t condemn the invasion at the UN, like most of the world did. Voting against Russia at the UN would have cost them nothing, yet those countries abstained: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

 

[contricusc]

In truth, these words are devoid of meaning. Where, for instance, is the ICC warrant for George Bush Jr? It is an intriguing question, for one could argue that American interventions in the Middle East created a power vacuum, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS and the displacement of millions who sought refuge in Europe at tremendous cost to their host countries. Consider also the millions of Afghan refugees, some of whom are my colleagues here in Sweden. Yet despite the millions affected by these policies, and the many closeted racists (who would naturally love to see less of the refugees) who support anti-immigration parties across Europe, I remain perplexed (with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable. The contrast with the enthusiastic embrace of white, Christian refugees from Ukraine, whose flags now fly in major city squares from Lisbon to Warsaw, offers a sobering view of the world in which we live.

There is also the question of what, exactly, countries that "take sides" and sanction Russia would gain. Would the world suddenly become free from Western military interventions? It seems unlikely. Too often, and well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, international law has proven to be nothing more than ink on paper.

I have said this before and will say it again: might makes right. The crux of the issue, however, is that this time, it is not the West's might that determines what is right.

After the Iraq war, a survey made in the EU asked people who they thought were the countries most threatening for world peace. The first two countries voted by Europeans were the USA and Israel. This shows that there was widespread discontent with the US in Europe at the time. As for Bush Jr. being condemned by the ICC, that is simply impossible from a political/diplomatic point of view, because European countries are members of NATO and allies of the US.

As for Ukrainian refugees being welcomed in Europe, it has to do with the fact that Ukraine is culturally much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and African countries are. Ukrainians can integrate much faster in the host countries. They mostly come with money, rent a place to stay and pay for their upkeep. Many of them speak English and can integrate fast in the workforce. Many of them are highly educated and are more desirable for emplyers. It also counts that most Ukrainian refugees are women and children, who don’t pose a threat to the locals. You can add the appreciation and respect that Europeans have for the male Ukrainians who remained home to defend their country, also defending the rest of Europe. By receiving their wives and children, the Europeans show their support for the warriors who risk their lives on the battlefield.

There is also the feeling in Europe that refugees from Afghanistan should go to their neighboring countries which are closer both geographically and culturally. The same applies for refugees from Africa (who are mostly economic migrants, not refugees), Syria or Iraq. It is not about racism. It is simply natural for Europeans to welcome refugees from a European country, while being reluctant to take too many refugees from distant places.

 

[jref]

As for Bush Jr. being condemned by the ICC, that is simply impossible from a political/diplomatic point of view, because European countries are members of NATO and allies of the US.

I am fully aware that issuing an arrest warrant for GBJ by the ICC is virtually impossible. What's more, no warmonger on this side of the pond will ever face justice either. There won't even be a scapegoat to pin the blame on, highlighting that justice is reserved for African and Balkan warlords. As a result, we find ourselves lacking credibility. While condemning an invasion may seem reasonable in a vacuum, when considering the context or, even better, who is making the call, things can take a different turn. As is often the case in life, perception is everything, and it's not always about what is being said but who is saying it. The same argument could be made for Libya.

culturally much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and African countries are. Ukrainians can integrate much faster in the host countries.

I am fully aware of this, and it only reinforces the need for the Western nations to put an end to military adventurism. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing lack of accountability, I don't think we have reached that point yet.

I will just leave this here:

How many of those calling for Putin’s arrest were complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq? | George Monbiot

Gordon Brown, Condoleezza Rice and Alastair Campbell are as responsible for an illegal war as the Russian leader’s ‘henchmen’ they condemn, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rob c]

When looking to carbon emissions, looking only on total emissions can be miss lead as countries with large population will have bigger total emissions. That is why many world bodies goes with Per capita emissions. It is more fair shown whose population give more pollution.

Also has to be calculate how much carbon accumulation one nation already put in atmosphere since Industrial Revolution. Why Industrial Revolution? Well because all human carbon footprint data shown jump in carbon footprint after Industrial Revolution.

"Third" world can give other arguments on that sense, why the "First" world should take first dive in this carbon footprint reduction. Simply put; "you already enjoy polluting the atmosphere longer then us". So you take the carbon footprint cut first.

I agree with the per capita argument on moral grounds, but we cannot dismiss the total emissions as this is what is doing the damage to the atmosphere. Going back in history I believe is not productive as in my mind the past is past and you cannot change the past so it is pointless trying to include it in what needs to be done. What is needed is action for the future and leadership to curb the total emissions on a world wide basis especially CO2 which is very long lived. The US as the worlds biggest polluter needs to be one of the major leaders, but I acknowledge that this is difficult due to their complicated political system.

 

[John Fedup]

I agree with the per capita argument on moral grounds, but we cannot dismiss the total emissions as this is what is doing the damage to the atmosphere. Going back in history I believe is not productive as in my mind the past is past and you cannot change the past so it is pointless trying to include it in what needs to be done. What is needed is action for the future and leadership to curb the total emissions on a world wide basis especially CO2 which is very long lived. The US as the worlds biggest polluter needs to be one of the major leaders, but I acknowledge that this is difficult due to their complicated political system.

Not sure if China has surpassed the US as the biggest polluter but ai suspect they are close. Their political system is absolutely going to make progress more difficult than even the idiot denying pollies in the US (have them in Canada as well).

 

[contricusc]

I am fully aware of this, and it only reinforces the need for the Western nations to put an end to military adventurism. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing lack of accountability, I don't think we have reached that point yet.

I totally agree that Western nations should stop any military adventures in far away countries. The past adventures have strongly discredited the Western nations and didn’t bring any benefit. The invasion of Iraq has helped Iran the most, while the US paid heavily in lost lives, money and credibility.

There is also the problem that when a Western country does something good it is never being recognized and respected for it. France helped Mali to save itself from the terrorists that were about to take over the county, but you don’t see many thanks for them, and they don’t receive the deserved recognition for what they did. It’s always costs with no recognition for Western countries whenever they deal with developing nations. If they help, they “don’t help enough”, or are not helping in the “right way”. If they don’t help, it is because they “don’t care”.

There was no Western intervention in Yemen or in Haiti. Are the countries better off because of that? Of course not, but had the Western countries interfered, anyone would put all the blame on them.

That’s why I say Western countries should stay away from the conflicts in other places, and help only other like-minded countries like Ukraine, who appreciate the West and are happy to be friends with it.

 

[John Fedup]

WRT Haiti, you are correct. This is why, despite US pressure, Canada doesn’t want any involvement in that quagmire. It is a C-F. Hard to believe half of Hispaniola, (an island), can be so screwed up on one side. Then again, some would claim the Ontario Quebec border, albeit to a much lesser extent, is similar.

 

[contricusc]

WRT Haiti, you are correct. This is why, despite US pressure, Canada doesn’t want any involvement in that quagmire. It is a C-F. Hard to believe half of Hispaniola, (an island), can be so screwed up on one side. Then again, some would claim the Ontario Quebec border, albeit to a much lesser extent, is similar.

Nobody should get involved in Haiti. The last time there was an international force that tried to stabilize the country (an effort mostly led by Brazil), it was accused of human rights abuses, etc. The Haitians were not happy with the help. Now their government asks for international assistance, while there are demonstrations against foreign interference by the population. The US and Canada should stay away, but they should also stop blaming the Dominicans for building a wall at the border. It is natural for the Dominican Republic to try to secure its border and prevent the country from being ruined by a mass influx of Haitians.

 

[aviation_enthus]

Not sure if China has surpassed the US as the biggest polluter but ai suspect they are close. Their political system is absolutely going to make progress more difficult than even the idiot denying pollies in the US (have them in Canada as well).

China has more than double the carbon emissions of the USA. On a per capita basis the are already up to half the US rate.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA

Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

www.epa.gov

 

[seaspear]

This is another graph showing some of the carbon pollution , but it should be a point to consider is that most of those countries heralding their green credential have exported their manufacturing for their consumer goods to countries that are heavily polluting from the manufacturing of goods
CO2 Emissions by Country - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

 

[Ananda]

agree with the per capita argument on moral grounds, but we cannot dismiss the total emissions as this is what is doing the damage to the atmosphere

It is not simply on moral ground, but also fairness point of view for those with large population, but low per capita emissions. In the end this is already become business bargain. The ones with low per capita emissions argue that it is matter to life quality.

Those with high per capita emissions coming from nations that have high live quality standards, and it is not fair to ask similar level of reduction from those with lower quality of live style, in order so the ones with higher per capita emissions can still have their existing standard. It is like the lower standard has to subsidies those that already in higher standard. For that those who already has higher per capita emissions has to reduce it faster then those with lower per capita. This is matter of economics and business.

Going back in history I believe is not productive as in my mind the past is past and you cannot change the past so it is pointless trying to include it in what needs to be done.

Well it is not pointless, because this is also part of bargaining chip in the table that actually happened. Those in early stages of development of industrial development uses this arguments as that those in later stages of industrial development already reach their living standard because their early pollution activities. So they have to reduce first and in faster rate.

Those two arguments actually are some of base on zero emissions bargaining. This is why OECD nations now has faster zero emissions target then those in Emerging Economies let alone those still in developed or even under developed economies. The last ones mostly in Sub Saharan Africa and they're also who has higher population growth. It is matter of fairness they are not going to have similar rate of emissions reduction target as OECD and Emerging economies.

So matter of fairness and economics/business consideration is integral parts on Global zero emissions bargaining.

 

[contricusc]

Those two arguments actually are some of base on zero emissions bargaining. This is why OECD nations now has faster zero emissions target then those in Emerging Economies let alone those still in developed or even under developed economies. The last ones mostly in Sub Saharan Africa and they're also who has higher population growth. It is matter of fairness they are not going to have similar rate of emissions reduction target as OECD and Emerging economies.

So matter of fairness and economics/business consideration is integral parts on Global zero emissions bargaining.

That’s exactly what I was pointing out as being unfair to the West, when I stated that the West is tolerating too much from developing countries.

The Global zero emission bargaining has been a total scam that took advantage of the weak leaders in the West. The Western leaders have accepted to hurt their countries while the rest of the world sacrifices nothing. I could have accepted those per capita arguments if the result of the negotiations was something like “developed nations start cutting their emissions now, while developing nations stop raising their emissions now”. As long as there are countries who are allowed to continue to raise their emissions, it is simply ridiculous for anyone to accept to be forced to cut their emissions.

The fact that countries with some of the biggest total emissions (China is first place and India is third) are not affected by the current targets and negotiations shows the futility of this effort from the Western part. While the UK or the Netherlands are putting huge pressures on their businesses and population to reduce emissions, China and India are not required to do anything. Sometimes I wonder if those who lead Western countries are simply traitors for accepting such outcomes from the negotiations.

Nobody in his right mind believes that China and India will ever accept a reduction in their emissions. They go along with the negotiations only because they want to fool the West into hurting itself as much as possible.

Also, there is the absurdity of not discussing population growth when it comes to global emissions and climate change. Nobody dares to mention the elephant in the room, because Europeans are too afraid to say anything bad about Africa, since they don’t want to be acused of being racists.