129

EU foreign policy chief: world cannot wait on US for climate action (www.euronews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/climate@slrpnk.net

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 days ago

The world can no longer depend on the US.

[-] cabbage@piefed.social 19 points 2 days ago

When could it really?

I know it did, but I feel like we're just waking up from some 80-year trance where we idiotically thought the US was something we could depend on.

[-] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago

The Marshall Plan was a hell of drug.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

also the big stick policy. not everyone of us did that by choice.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago

They...they were waiting...waiting for the...U S.????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANABABANHAHAHAHAH

[+] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Then I invite you to get going without us. I'm so tired of the European idea that they are so much better than Americans until they need to do literally anything, and then suddenly it's "We can't do it without the Americans." Am I gonna have to start posting that insipid Marilyn Monroe quote, or can we get some year round support over here, instead of just when it's in fashion.

[-] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 20 points 2 days ago

Social security, medical cost, food safety, product safety, consumer protection, worker protection are just some things off the top of my head where the EU is far ahead of the USA. We're only really dependent regarding defense, but honestly, the EU military would probably be enough to stand against Russia if it came to it.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

It was the deal made after world war 2. Europe buys your goods, uses dollar for international trade and reserve currency, buys oil from American companies and trade oil in petro dollars, making American citizens the richest in the world. In turn we have Pax Americana meaning USA beings the world's police, militair bases on European soil, and cooperation in things like climate.

If the choice is made to change that deal, a lot of things will change too. Probably not for the better.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The arrangement after WWII wasn’t about Europe doing America a favor. The U.S. took on a huge financial burden with programs like the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe, a debt that wasn’t fully repaid. Given Europe’s weakened currencies and economies, the dollar naturally took the lead as the global reserve currency.

The petrodollar system, meanwhile, was a separate deal made with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s—not at Europe’s urging. Saudi Arabia agreed to sell oil in dollars, largely because the U.S. had a strong economy and a stable currency, making it attractive for oil trade.

As for Pax Americana, the U.S. assumed a global policing role partly because WWII left much of the world in ruins. Our military and financial support for alliances like NATO strengthened Europe’s security during rebuilding, with the U.S. shouldering the largest share of costs.

So, it’s not fair to frame this as Europe generously allowing the U.S. to ‘play ball.’ For nearly a century, the U.S. has provided extensive support to Europe and other allies, and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs and responsibilities.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs

It was an empire in all but name and was a bit more than just a strategic benefit, but every empire gets too expensive to maintain and must shrink again.

Last start American politicians started to talk about the cost and responsibilities being too much, EU countries started cozying up to China and it freaked the same politicians that were talking "I invite you to get going without us". Let's see what happens this time.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You’re absolutely right that many powerful nations have faced this pattern. America’s post-WWII global influence resembles an ‘empire’ in the sense that it shaped world economics and politics, even if it wasn’t a traditional empire. And sure, the U.S. did get more than just ‘strategic benefits’ — having the dollar as the dominant currency, for instance, came with clear economic advantages.

But the other side of this is that America’s involvement hasn’t been purely self-serving; it’s also helped maintain relative global stability. With the U.S. starting to weigh the costs and shift focus inward, it’s natural for EU countries to explore other partnerships, like with China. That’s a smart move to balance their interests.

But whether the U.S. scales back its role or redefines it, it will be interesting to see what that means for global stability. Historically, the power shifts you mentioned don’t always lead to smooth transitions. The big question is how Europe and others will manage in a world where the U.S. might not be playing the same role as it has for the past 70+ years.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Global stability of always good for trade and business. The supply chains disruption with covid shows what a bit of chaos can do to businesses, so it's not entirely altruistic.

But I'm aware that this transition away from American dominance can be wild. It's inevitable that fighting for the top dog position will happen. How that plays out with shrinking population is anyone's guess.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago

...what?

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024

129 points (97.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5222 readers

529 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net