• Fizz
    link
    fedilink
    -710 months ago

    @yogthos All good and well to “forecast” things that make them look good. Currently they consume over half the worlds coal and only account for 1/3rd of the solar. They are the biggest climate change threat on the planet and they are doing nothing to change that. Infact the forecast increasing emissions until at least 2030.

    • yes, the country that’s actively reducing their fossil fuel use and have historically reached their stated goals with time to spare is surely the problem, never mind the massive pollution from the long-industrialized Western countries that have had many decades to stop using fossil fuels

    • @zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      They account for like 80% of PV production. Basically all of that solar deployed in the rest of the world was built in China. For the fraction that isn’t, it was probably built in Southeast Asia by a Chinese company.

      • Fizz
        link
        fedilink
        010 months ago

        @zephyreks I don’t under what is your point? They are allowed to make no progress because they are producing the solar?

        I disagree that them producing the tech used for green energy is good. China has no environmental standards or ethical standards for how things should be produced. This allows them to outcompete the rest of the world.

        If China wasn’t making solar, other countries would produce solar. The result wouldn’t be no solar production.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Where do you think all your shit is produced exactly genius. The biggest climate change threat are mouth breathers living in the west who consume more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world.

      • Skua
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        China is on par with the EU for consumption-based emissions per capita these days. Better per capita than the US still, but the direction of travel for both is narrowing that gap over time

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          That’s factually wrong, US, Canada, and lots of nordic countries have far higher per capita consumption. Meanwhile, the transition from fossils at China is happening at a far more rapid pace than in the west. The gap is actually growing over time.

          • Skua
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Your link shows exactly what I said. EU and China close together, US way above. Go to the chart view and you can pick the EU as a single entity, plus you get the change over time.

            Of course, what I actually said was not “energy usage”. I said consumption-based emissions. You can get those here and you’ll see that the slim gap between the EU and China vanishes altogether, plus the direction of travel changes. Energy consumption alone does not account for the way that that energy is being generated, something which seems pretty pertinent considering the article we’re commenting under.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              -510 months ago

              My link shows that it varies significantly across the EU and northern European countries consume around double of China per capita.

              • Skua
                link
                fedilink
                510 months ago

                Okay? I’m sure it would vary significantly across different parts of China too, or across different parts of any individual country. I chose the EU as a whole because then we’re dealing with an entity on a similar scale to China, and a much closer approximation of “the west” than any one country of five-ten million people.

                You’ve completely failed to respond to the fact that energy consumption does not directly correlate with emissions. If you’re using twice as much energy as me but you’re getting it all from solar panels and I’m getting it all from burning coal, which one of us is doing more harm to the environment?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -410 months ago

                  What the map clearly shows is that the highest consumption in China is on part with the lowest consumption in EU. I’m not sure why you’re having so much trouble with this to be honest.

                  Meanwhile, the reason to focus on energy consumption is because it’s far more meaningful than focusing on emissions. EU countries are largely deinudstrialized and they import much of the necessities from places like China. This creates a skewed picture of emissions because EU outsources much of the emissions needed for EU to operate to other countries.

                  And last I checked burning increasingly more coal is precisely what EU is doing. In fact, Germany is even dismantling wind farms to create more coal plants https://euobserver.com/green-economy/157364

                  • Skua
                    link
                    fedilink
                    410 months ago

                    What the map clearly shows is that the highest consumption in China is on part with the lowest consumption in EU

                    The map shows the average across all of China. There is no breakdown of any national subdivisions. Where are you getting figures for the highest consumption in China?

                    it’s far more meaningful than focusing on emissions.

                    Why? Energy consumption is not what’s damaging the environment. Emissions are.

                    EU countries are largely deinudstrialized and they import much of the necessities from places like China.

                    I used consumption-based emissions specifically to account for the balance of imports. Please, at least actually read what I said.

                    And last I checked burning increasingly more coal is precisely what EU is doing. In fact, Germany is even dismantling wind farms to create more coal plants euobserver.com/green-economy/157364

                    Again, you’re looking at one part of a much larger entity and ignoring the broader picture. While I do not want to see Germany, or anyone else, opening new coal mines, single-digit numbers of wind turbines are not going to save the day here.

                    In 2022, Germany burnt 28 petajoules of coal per million people, whereas China burnt 62 petajoules of coal per million. Values here for Germany and China, divided by populations taken from wikipedia. You’ll also notice that Germany’s consumption is trending down, while China’s isn’t.

          • Fizz
            link
            fedilink
            -410 months ago

            @NoneOfUrBusiness @yogthos @bioemerl they don’t have a point. They absolutely hang off per captia emissions stats because it’s the only way they can dismiss the extreme damage China is doing to the environment. Having more population doesn’t allow you to pollute more. That output still harms the earth all the same.

            Majority of the west is trending towards less emissions where as China is increasing emissions exponentially year on year.

            • bioemerl
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              The main thing I think is important in regards to China and the environment is that China explicitly opted to open up areas that subverted all of our pollution controls and ability to regulate industry, undervalued our labor, and generally fucked up progress for a solid decade, and they’re going to continue to do that for a decade yet.

              I’m not super prone to blame China for the pollution because they have a lot of people and they have to feed and give those people stuff.

              But I will happily blame them for everything in paragraph one.

              I left my comments because it’s important to know when a bunch of shills for Stalin and mao are running around regardless of the validity of what they have to say, because whatever’s coming out of their mouth is almost certainly propaganda.

            • Pili
              link
              fedilink
              -110 months ago

              That’s so stupid. Of course more people will mean more pollution. You’re not making any sense, please try to think 5 minutes before posting.

        • appel
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          So will you engage in the argument or just point fingers like a child in a playground?