Making it seem to be a large protest is a well-known deceivement tactic in politics.
Bottom left of the marked area are those lion statues, while the top right is the lowest point of the chains between the two gates, which is as far as I can see the crowd using that reference. 1 person per meter is a pretty low estimate for a protest walk, but I took it as an average anyway since I can't see the density that far back. I've ended up with 1890 people, and I'd say that pretty much the lowest estimate you can get from that photo.
Nice tool though, I'll use it again!
Trying to make a point with humourous signs is pretty common across demonstrations in Europe and using sex jokes for humour is too. I'm not saying that this is a particularly funny one, but I am saying that your reason for not taking a protest seriously says more about you than about the protestors.
(I think the argument about the tiny crowd and the misleading photography is a lot stronger)
"Stronger" in what sense? I don't understand the point people are trying to make regarding the crowd size at one particular demonstration. Are you suggesting that the Budapest city councilors were somehow "tricked" into approving this motion unanimously, just by showing them a few photos from strange angles?
Funny how even a partially planned economy is more effective.
Europe is doing quite well on that chart.
"China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, cut its 2005 carbon intensity level, or the amount of climate-warming carbon dioxide it produces per unit of economic growth, by 46 percent in 2017, Xie told a forum in Shanghai"
Instead, it's like a participation trophy for politicians.
It is easy to promise little to no change.
The US is only 20% of total C02 output. Even if it were 0, China and India are still ruining the climate and the Paris accords didn't stop this.
Per-capita doesn't matter. Reality doesn't care about fairness.
Also, other countries with higher pollution level should never be a reference or excuse
I'd say there's room to improve, but if we compared all countries this way, we might have a good conversation.
For instance, Germany may be skewed as high pollution per capita, but roughly 1/2 of their economy is for exports. Penalizing them because they make things there for people around the world wouldn't seem fair.
 - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/infographic-heres-how-t...
It's a prisoner's dilemma instance we are all in, so finger-pointing does not help with anything, for anyone.
Furthermore, countries you point very lightly make up almost half the world population. And their emissions per capita are laughably low(especially India) compared to US.
That's what your argument sounds like.
My point is that nobody wants do do anything about the other 80%. No punishment and excuses are given that they are 'developing nations', so they can freely pollute the earth and destroy the environment.
We really should be concentrating o n that 80%, and we aren't, which makes me question the motives of things like the Paris agreement.
While we bend over backwards to save the environment, these nations just use it as a way to boost their own economies while continuing to pollute and break every agreement and lie about it.
You may be thinking of the Kyoto protocol, which did exempt "developing" countries like China and India (which I agree is very flawed). The Paris agreement includes China though.
Meanwhile the West keeps sending more business, more manufacturing and more recycling to China - they are, in no small part, merely moving the accounting of the West's emissions. Of course they are also a developing country - it's not realistic for them to do that entirely sustainably without Western subsidy - an idea not discussed seriously since probably Rio in the early 90s, when there was briefly talk of an intent to help the developing world fast-track right past our dirty phase of development. China have been inconsistent about coal too. So have some countries in the best performing bloc, the EU. Notably The Netherlands, Poland and Germany.
I do think it was absurd China (and to a lesser extent India) came out of Paris with an almost limitless potential to increase emissions until 2030. Neither are undeveloped and remotely like the world's poorest.
A more sensible approach would have been to tie subsidy to each, and every trade deal. An EU or USA that truly cared about emissions would impose a carbon or renewables levy on products coming in from China and others. The US would push their pet the WTO to bake in emissions into global trade rules.
Had any of that been done round about Rio, or even as late as Paris, we might have a far more optimistic outlook.
What are the expected changes that actually will help climate change?
I'm also glad to see a green policy that is, if not pro-nuclear, at least accepting that it is a reasonable target for financing.
Seems to adequately fit under emergency as immediate threat to me.
Maybe calling institutions "conservative" because they are the lowest of the over estimators is part of the problem here?
They are, after all, an intergovernmental UN body, which includes representatives from the oil states and countries that are "unconvinced" by climate heating. Yet IPCC reports require unanimity. Thus what gets published is the least contentious, least offensive spin possible - the version that even the oil states and coal exporters can agree.
Saudi has tried to significantly tone down reports to protect their oil interests:
When whole countries are denying there's a problem, I think countries stepping forward to declare there's a problem to be addressed is a (sad but) necessary first step.
I think it is not enough to put out meaningless virtue signaling, you have to back it up with rock-solid policy otherwise it is only good to win you over some votes (which is the reason politicians use it at the first place).
I estimated that PM2.5 pollution from cigarettes can represent up to 5% of vehicle traffic pollution (estimation made for Paris, using their data of traffic pollution, and cigarette sales)
Also, when someone is smoking in his idling car in traffic jams, there's actually more pollution coming out from his cigarette than from the rest of the car (cf that old paper https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6312-cigarettes-more-...)
Of course it's just one factor among others, but each of them is worth efforts
We have nuclear power plants and stuff.
Hungary is not as rich as e.g. Germany, but it's certainly not a backward country; it has indigenous culture that runs universities and is comfortably in the "Very high HDI" bracket for human development.
Even my “underdeveloped” village has now 24/7 electricity, water, sewer system, gas pipelines for heating, CATV and ADSL internet.
So please stop try to prove me, that it is a 3rd world country.
I really wish to know the root cause for persistence of this label. Its not that surprising for US, but surprising amount of western Europeans tend to share this view.
Relative wealth - it's progressed rapidly but Eastern Europe is still generally poorer than Western.
Cultural differences - Eastern Europe has a reputation for far greater cultural conservatism, religiosity, etc. . Perhaps this reputation is unearned, I don't know. It correlates to "out of date" for many western Europeans though.
Lack of exposure - plenty of people in Western Europe study French, German, English - fewer study Hungarian.
Lack of reference material - for a long time views of Eastern Europe were based entirely on being behind the iron curtain, and we've only had about a generation since then to build material.
Media coverage - Based on the news I know that Hungary is run by a far right would-be dictator, or that Poland wants to cut down the last primeval forest in Europe, etc. and not much else.
That being said I think it's changing. Slovenia is often viewed in a positive light (I adore Ljubljana for instance, and it's the only country I know with real light pollution legislation!) and if nothing else I see Eastern European cities/countries being recommended as holiday destinations more as time goes on.
Though I'm an American who lives in Ireland. Not sure if views are changing in the states; some people seem to think Ireland is still mostly thatched cottages and sheep farms.
Edit: As a side note, the persistence of that label might be because of the persistence of our societies in isolating from the majority of our countries, ignoring problems, and calling it progress just because a minority lives way better than the average. Unless we stick our heads up, acknowledge the issues, and solve them, then no amount of political correctness will save us.
People are ignorant and have prejudices, and prejudices don't shake easily. It's not like there aren't similar prejudices about western Europe (Italy is filled with crime! Irish are drunk! etc).
The rise of low cost flight in Europe has thrown down barriers and people travel more, but it's only a tiny minority of the population who decides to travel to eastern european destinations.