4 ms·

The figure of 1.5 tonnes you gave for China only looks at direct household energy consumption sources (I.e fuel, heating and electricity). It’s not at all compa

by jeeeb 5y ago

The figure of 1.5 tonnes you gave for China only looks at direct household energy consumption sources (I.e fuel, heating and electricity). It’s not at all comparable to the German paper. The figure of 1.7 tonnes is only for household consumption figures from 2011. China’s economy (and emissions) has grown enormously in the last 10 years. These aren’t fair comparisons based on recent data, and they only look at household consumption. And I’d maintain that China bares responsibility for its industrial development and energy mix choices. No one has forced those choices on China. China has pursued those policies with the aim of increasing export competitiveness, often at the cost of manufactures in western nations.

l332mn 5y ago
We don't have exact data for the entire product life cycle emissions, but the data I provided give some indications of the difference in scale. What we can see is that 1) Household emissions represent the largest share of global emissions 2) Household emissions are very roughly proportional to expenditure So while we don't have exact numbers, the 1/5'th estimate is actually roughly on the spot given the disparity in household consumption. I'll also just reiterate my point that temporarily building infrastructure in order to catch up with western countries is not blameworthy in itself. While the production has much room for improval in terms of emissions, it is wrong to blame China for the emissions simply for existing. At any rate, the narrative that China is the most blameworthy actor falls flat on its face. The take-away should be that, as the German paper mentions, that we must drastically reduce household emissions in order to reach our climate goals. Instead, the debate is mostly political and one-sided, where the ideal (i.e. most convenient) goal for western policy makers appears to be to put an end to or hamper China's infrastructure projects which are crucial to the welfare of the Chinese people, and by extension, the peoples of other nations affected by the Belt and Road initiative. To me, it suspiciously looks like the climate debate in the media has been to some degree hijacked by forces that seeks to undermine China's Belt and Road initiative.

by jeeeb 5y ago

l332mn 5y ago

We don't have exact data for the entire product life cycle emissions, but the data I provided give some indications of the difference in scale. What we can see is that 1) Household emissions represent the largest share of global emissions 2) Household emissions are very roughly proportional to expenditure So while we don't have exact numbers, the 1/5'th estimate is actually roughly on the spot given the disparity in household consumption. I'll also just reiterate my point that temporarily building infrastructure in order to catch up with western countries is not blameworthy in itself. While the production has much room for improval in terms of emissions, it is wrong to blame China for the emissions simply for existing. At any rate, the narrative that China is the most blameworthy actor falls flat on its face. The take-away should be that, as the German paper mentions, that we must drastically reduce household emissions in order to reach our climate goals. Instead, the debate is mostly political and one-sided, where the ideal (i.e. most convenient) goal for western policy makers appears to be to put an end to or hamper China's infrastructure projects which are crucial to the welfare of the Chinese people, and by extension, the peoples of other nations affected by the Belt and Road initiative. To me, it suspiciously looks like the climate debate in the media has been to some degree hijacked by forces that seeks to undermine China's Belt and Road initiative.