> Frankly, it doesn't matter what reduction Europe does (and Europe's GHG emissions reduction has been massive [6]) because India and ASEAN's GHG emissions expansion eats up any reduction from the EU-27 and US.

You're contradicting yourself. If Europe doesn't reduce emissions expansion doubles.

▲

phtrivier 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And China has plans that have some decarbonization baked in - and even the US are decarbonizing, no matter what the current administration says.

Can they decarbonize _fast enough_ ? No idea...

India and the rest of asia will be interesting - can they leapfrog oil and gas for some sectors ?

▲

hammock 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

India is very renewable already. Same with Africa. Hundreds of millions if not billions burn wood and biomass for heat and cooking daily

	▲	triceratops 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Definitely not billions. Do you have actual sources for how many? Do you imagine they enjoy wood and dung smoke in their houses, or maybe they'd prefer electric ranges or hot plates powered by solar panels?

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Can they decarbonize _fast enough_ ? No idea...

Likely not. China and the US are decarbonizing, but their overall rate of GHG emissions is still stagnant.

> India and the rest of asia will be interesting - can they leapfrog oil and gas for some sectors ?

Not really. GreenTech is useful, but there are multiple industrial processes and products such as Fertilizers and Steel that have hard carbon and coal dependencies.

Additionally, in Asia energy security is the name of the game, not environmentalism.

Edit: can't reply

> If solar is the cheapest form of energy...

Cheap but comes with a dependency on China.

Also, a number of industrial processes like Fertilizers and Steel simply cannot be decarbonized because carbon is a critical input.

> have much oil and gas

Most of ASEAN (Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Phillipines) has significant gas reserves because of the South China Sea.

But coal remains cheap and available everywhere.

> Asia is also the most vulnerable continent to climate change. Reversing or mitigating it is national security in a way that it simply isn't for most developed economies.

And depending on the country, GreenTech dependency on China is also a real risk. Vietnam (Hoang Sa), Phillipines (Bajo de Masinloc), Indonesia (Laut Natuna Utara), India, and other large industrial states in Asia have ongoing disputes with China that have gone hot over the past decade.

▲

triceratops 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Additionally, in Asia energy security is the name of the game, not environmentalism.

Does Asia, outside of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Middle East, have much oil and gas? If solar is the cheapest form of energy, and can't be embargoed, why wouldn't they adopt it rapidly?

Asia is also the most vulnerable continent to climate change. Reversing or mitigating it is national security in a way that it simply isn't for most developed economies.

▲

phtrivier 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Completely agree.

On the last point : given enough climate events, "decarbonization" will become a "national security" topic. Who knows what happens next. (First chapter of "Ministry for the Future" always comes to mind...)

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They eat the cost. Most countries are not as poor as they used to be 30 years ago, and can afford a $2 billion or even $10 billion climate disaster hit.

Back in VN, the cyclone seasons now causes several billion dollars of damage a year yet they still trudge on. Same with the Philippines, China, India, and others.

> given enough climate events, "decarbonization" will become a "national security" topic

They already are, but most large states in Asia also have ongoing disputes with China that have almost gone hot multiple times over the past decade.

▲

Lord-Jobo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The climate disaster costs are going to be so so much bigger than that unless our rates change. It’s easy to look at our $30000B gdp, even project that to 100k B into the future, and say “well we will eat the 2-10B costs”.

There is no number for “we don’t have a source of soy anymore” or “Florida coastlines have moved 50 miles inland” or “the Ogallala is empty”. We could guess, and we would be guessing some really really big numbers that don’t sound very eatable.

The big easy ones are the weather disasters. Katrina did 200b in damage (inflation adjusted). If we jump up to a disaster like that yearly, 1000b every 5 years is…. A serious problem for a 30,000B economy. And that’s JUST hurricanes.

	▲	alephnerd 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but no one is going to change their track and this is something that neither the EU-27 nor the US nor anyone else has power over now. And it's not like this wasn't known - we were literally modeling this kind of a standoff at the Belfer Center almost 15 years ago. What I am trying to say is arguing from a moralistic or humanity standpoint doesn't help because that's not how decisionmakers think, and that requires accepting agency across multiple players. We need to accept we are fucked, and based on the cards we have in our hand understand what will happen next.

▲

triceratops 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can they afford wet bulb events that kill outdoor laborers? Crop failures and mass starvation?

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You're contradicting yourself. If Europe doesn't reduce emissions expansion doubles.

What I am saying is it doesn't matter if Europe drops GHGs anymore - either way we are now at a stage in 2026 that some of the worst aspects of climate change are irreversible

Edit: can't reply

> It can always get worse...

Not can, will.

	▲	triceratops 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> some of the worst aspects of climate change are irreversible You're wrong about that. It can always get worse. Especially by believing that reducing emissions somewhere doesn't matter.