4 ms·

This is false. 90% of China's co2 emissions are for local consumption, not manufacturing. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.

This is false. 90% of China's co2 emissions are for local consumption, not manufacturing. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

sudosysgen 5y ago
Is that so? Your source doesn't show which percentage of energy is used for foreign production or to support foreign production
- nostromo 5y ago
  It does. Reference "Consumption-based accounting: how do emissions compare when we adjust for trade?"
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    No, it doesn't. It accounts only for trade in emissions related to fossil fuels and cement use. It doesn't account for all of the supporting emissions needed to power a factory, just the cement needed to build that factory and the electricity needed to run it. The emissions for the infrastructure and transport aren't accounted properly. There is as of yet no solid data for this.
    - nostromo 5y ago
      We can't have a productive conversation if you're not going to bother to read and understand the source. > Whilst China is a large CO2 emissions exporter, it is no longer a large emitter because it produces goods for the rest of the world. This was the case in the past, but today, even adjusted for trade, China now has a per capita footprint higher than the global average (which is 4.8 tonnes per capita in 2017).
      - dwohnitmok 5y ago
        You're talking past sudosysgen. sudosysgen is arguing the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power and cement production instead of both additional emission sources as well as second order consequences (e.g. what infrastructure exists because of the need for trade). I personally could buy the 14% deficit number for China based on gut feel alone but I also think the trend line looks weird and indicates maybe something off with the accounting. For example I would expect the deficit now to much smaller than it was 20 years ago whereas it in fact appears to be considerably larger. Indeed if the graph is to be believed it appears this deficit has been growing this decade compared to past decades (although perhaps the last few years may indicate a reversal?) which is not what I would expect.
        nostromo 5y ago
        > the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power and cement production instead of both additional emission sources That is only true for the first chart, not the chart we’re referencing in this conversation.
        dwohnitmok 5y ago
        Am I missing something? I'm looking at the chart "Production vs. consumption-based CO₂ emissions, China" (which is the chart that I think is the result of the article "How do CO2 emissions compare when we adjust for trade?") where the legend says > Note: This measures CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and cement production only – land use change is not included.
wombatmobile 5y ago
If you are referring to the chart titled China: Consumption-based accounting, that chart doesn't account for C02 attributable to the products Chinese manufacturers export. It merely adjusts Chinese domestic C02 emissions by adding imported emissions that are encapsulated in imported goods. The term "Consumption" as used for the chart does not mean Chinese domestic consumption, but rather describes all C02 emitted domestically, including in the manufacturing of goods destined for export.
- nostromo 5y ago
  Wrong. It does. Read the description, or their longer description here: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 > To calculate consumption-based emissions we need to track which goods are traded across the world, and whenever a good was imported we need to include all CO2 emissions that were emitted in the production of that good, and vice versa to subtract all CO2 emissions that were emitted in the production of goods that were exported.

This is false. 90% of China's co2 emissions are for local consumption, not manufacturing. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

sudosysgen 5y ago

Is that so? Your source doesn't show which percentage of energy is used for foreign production or to support foreign production

nostromo 5y ago
It does. Reference "Consumption-based accounting: how do emissions compare when we adjust for trade?"
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  No, it doesn't. It accounts only for trade in emissions related to fossil fuels and cement use. It doesn't account for all of the supporting emissions needed to power a factory, just the cement needed to build that factory and the electricity needed to run it. The emissions for the infrastructure and transport aren't accounted properly. There is as of yet no solid data for this.
  - nostromo 5y ago
    We can't have a productive conversation if you're not going to bother to read and understand the source. > Whilst China is a large CO2 emissions exporter, it is no longer a large emitter because it produces goods for the rest of the world. This was the case in the past, but today, even adjusted for trade, China now has a per capita footprint higher than the global average (which is 4.8 tonnes per capita in 2017).
    - dwohnitmok 5y ago
      You're talking past sudosysgen. sudosysgen is arguing the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power and cement production instead of both additional emission sources as well as second order consequences (e.g. what infrastructure exists because of the need for trade). I personally could buy the 14% deficit number for China based on gut feel alone but I also think the trend line looks weird and indicates maybe something off with the accounting. For example I would expect the deficit now to much smaller than it was 20 years ago whereas it in fact appears to be considerably larger. Indeed if the graph is to be believed it appears this deficit has been growing this decade compared to past decades (although perhaps the last few years may indicate a reversal?) which is not what I would expect.
      - nostromo 5y ago
        > the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power and cement production instead of both additional emission sources That is only true for the first chart, not the chart we’re referencing in this conversation.
        dwohnitmok 5y ago
        Am I missing something? I'm looking at the chart "Production vs. consumption-based CO₂ emissions, China" (which is the chart that I think is the result of the article "How do CO2 emissions compare when we adjust for trade?") where the legend says > Note: This measures CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and cement production only – land use change is not included.

wombatmobile 5y ago

If you are referring to the chart titled China: Consumption-based accounting, that chart doesn't account for C02 attributable to the products Chinese manufacturers export. It merely adjusts Chinese domestic C02 emissions by adding imported emissions that are encapsulated in imported goods. The term "Consumption" as used for the chart does not mean Chinese domestic consumption, but rather describes all C02 emitted domestically, including in the manufacturing of goods destined for export.

nostromo 5y ago
Wrong. It does. Read the description, or their longer description here: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 > To calculate consumption-based emissions we need to track which goods are traded across the world, and whenever a good was imported we need to include all CO2 emissions that were emitted in the production of that good, and vice versa to subtract all CO2 emissions that were emitted in the production of goods that were exported.