4 ms·

They collectively still emit substantially more than the US and Western Europe, and much more importantly, GHG emissions have been declining in the US and Weste

They collectively still emit substantially more than the US and Western Europe, and much more importantly, GHG emissions have been declining in the US and Western Europe for over two decades. In that same time period, they have done nothing but grow rapidly in China and India. All the information we have so far suggests that India will continue to grow rapidly in this regard even after China plateaus on carbon emissions. We can play semantic games with per-capita consumption, but the fact of the matter remains that even if the entirety of the planet, except China and India, went 100% carbon neutral overnight, it would still be impossible to avoid hitting catastrophic climate change thresholds due to GHG emissions from those two countries alone. They are both countries home to a rapidly rising broad middle class, and that middle class is going to want to enjoy the spoils of materialistic consumerism (the true root cause of human-induced climate change) just as much as our grandparents did, our parents did, and we do.

h0l0cube 2y ago
> We can play semantic games with per-capita consumption, but the fact of the matter remains that even if the entirety of the planet, except China and India, went 100% carbon neutral overnight, it would still be impossible to avoid hitting catastrophic climate change thresholds due to GHG emissions from those two countries alone. Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. > Global annual renewable capacity additions increased by almost 50% to nearly 510 gigawatts (GW) in 2023, the fastest growth rate in the past two decades. [..] In 2023, China commissioned as much solar PV as the entire world did in 2022, while its wind additions also grew by 66% year-on-year. Globally, solar PV alone accounted for three-quarters of renewable capacity additions worldwide. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar... The western world is shifting away from China to India and the rest of Asia for manufacturing, so I think the desire for cheaper products and ‘national security’ are going to increase emissions somewhat. But even still, with the glut of renewables, and soon the glut of batteries, emissions free energy is going to be the cheapest option for manufacturing anyway
- throwaway290 2y ago
  > Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. False. They have good green PR to justify other governments funneling taxpayer money via subsidies but meanwhile they are building the most coal plants than any country and this has been only ramping up in recent years with more new fossil fuel power plants being approved year on year. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-...
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > False. As I've explained in another comment, adding power stations and capacity doesn't mean running 100% all year. China is using coal as peakers much like other countries use gas for this purpose. Given that China is also installing the most energy storage, it's not long (at current growth, less than 10 years) before these plants are only used in emergency situations.
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      You explained wrong. literally no one uses coal as peaker ever, and they are building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined (the country is not even the most populous)
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        I can point to the data. Do you have anything to back yourself? Reputable sources? What are your convictions based on? > literally no one uses coal as peaker ever While these plants might be strained by having to adjust their output, they don’t need to have a long lifespan. On the current growth curve, 10 years max and batteries have taken over. As for China building things that are redundant, look at the ghost cities. Their local governments are incentivized to hit quotas, and it ends up with useless crap being built
        2y ago
netsharc 2y ago
I wrote about why saying it's their fault and not ours is not admitting our own fault is... bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015413 > that middle class is going to want to enjoy the spoils of materialistic consumerism (the true root cause of human-induced climate change) just as much as our grandparents did, our parents did, and we do. The last 3 words is key there. WE also don't want to give up those spoils. And we want to enjoy them by outsourcing their production to the cheapest places and cheapest methods, like unsafe mining of minerals done by underpaid children. But hey, it's not happening in our country, so we're fine? If a phone is made with minerals mined using safe Western mining standards, and made by factory workers earning decent wages, and it's CO2 neutral, and so on, it'll be more expensive, and will not sell well, because as long as there's another country producing the same phone but without all those "external" costs, the consumer will say "Look, this phone has the exact same specs but is way cheaper!".
- throwaway290 2y ago
  You manage to make it look like no one can make a sane choice for themselves. Other countries can only do what we want (because WE want cheap products WE make them do bad stuff), and we can only do what they want (if they offer something that is cheaper then we automatically must buy it and not care about any damage or side-effects). It's a paradox isn't it? In reality it is government's choice, to go for short term riches and maintaining power or act more ethically and think long term. And consumers pay more all the time for things like "no slave labour" (idk how well it's enforced, I just say it's a value), "ethically sourced materials", "recycled", "no spying malware", blahblahblah, just look at Android vs iPhone.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    > You manage to make it look like no one can make a sane choice for themselves. On average, the "sane" choice is to go for the cheapest option, or turn a blind eye to the child labor, etc. Sure, some people want to live ethically and minimize their emissions, but there's not enough of them. > In reality it is government's choice, to go for short term riches and maintaining power or act more ethically and think long term. Yeah, Macron tried to tax fuel more and there were widespread protests by "average French citizen", and he got metaphorically beaten up in the last election. The EU incumbents watered down green projects because of fear of losing to the rightwing populists. It's the sane choice for them to make, because I'd rather be governed by the somewhat sane center-right than lying manipulative populist hard-right, but the sane choice meant stepping away from the path of an ecological future. The summary is, if you try to be ethical, you get voted out of office, god bless democracy! /s

h0l0cube 2y ago

> We can play semantic games with per-capita consumption, but the fact of the matter remains that even if the entirety of the planet, except China and India, went 100% carbon neutral overnight, it would still be impossible to avoid hitting catastrophic climate change thresholds due to GHG emissions from those two countries alone. Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. > Global annual renewable capacity additions increased by almost 50% to nearly 510 gigawatts (GW) in 2023, the fastest growth rate in the past two decades. [..] In 2023, China commissioned as much solar PV as the entire world did in 2022, while its wind additions also grew by 66% year-on-year. Globally, solar PV alone accounted for three-quarters of renewable capacity additions worldwide. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar... The western world is shifting away from China to India and the rest of Asia for manufacturing, so I think the desire for cheaper products and ‘national security’ are going to increase emissions somewhat. But even still, with the glut of renewables, and soon the glut of batteries, emissions free energy is going to be the cheapest option for manufacturing anyway

throwaway290 2y ago
> Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. False. They have good green PR to justify other governments funneling taxpayer money via subsidies but meanwhile they are building the most coal plants than any country and this has been only ramping up in recent years with more new fossil fuel power plants being approved year on year. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-...
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > False. As I've explained in another comment, adding power stations and capacity doesn't mean running 100% all year. China is using coal as peakers much like other countries use gas for this purpose. Given that China is also installing the most energy storage, it's not long (at current growth, less than 10 years) before these plants are only used in emergency situations.
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    You explained wrong. literally no one uses coal as peaker ever, and they are building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined (the country is not even the most populous)
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      I can point to the data. Do you have anything to back yourself? Reputable sources? What are your convictions based on? > literally no one uses coal as peaker ever While these plants might be strained by having to adjust their output, they don’t need to have a long lifespan. On the current growth curve, 10 years max and batteries have taken over. As for China building things that are redundant, look at the ghost cities. Their local governments are incentivized to hit quotas, and it ends up with useless crap being built
      - 2y ago

netsharc 2y ago

I wrote about why saying it's their fault and not ours is not admitting our own fault is... bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015413 > that middle class is going to want to enjoy the spoils of materialistic consumerism (the true root cause of human-induced climate change) just as much as our grandparents did, our parents did, and we do. The last 3 words is key there. WE also don't want to give up those spoils. And we want to enjoy them by outsourcing their production to the cheapest places and cheapest methods, like unsafe mining of minerals done by underpaid children. But hey, it's not happening in our country, so we're fine? If a phone is made with minerals mined using safe Western mining standards, and made by factory workers earning decent wages, and it's CO2 neutral, and so on, it'll be more expensive, and will not sell well, because as long as there's another country producing the same phone but without all those "external" costs, the consumer will say "Look, this phone has the exact same specs but is way cheaper!".

throwaway290 2y ago
You manage to make it look like no one can make a sane choice for themselves. Other countries can only do what we want (because WE want cheap products WE make them do bad stuff), and we can only do what they want (if they offer something that is cheaper then we automatically must buy it and not care about any damage or side-effects). It's a paradox isn't it? In reality it is government's choice, to go for short term riches and maintaining power or act more ethically and think long term. And consumers pay more all the time for things like "no slave labour" (idk how well it's enforced, I just say it's a value), "ethically sourced materials", "recycled", "no spying malware", blahblahblah, just look at Android vs iPhone.
- netsharc 2y ago
  > You manage to make it look like no one can make a sane choice for themselves. On average, the "sane" choice is to go for the cheapest option, or turn a blind eye to the child labor, etc. Sure, some people want to live ethically and minimize their emissions, but there's not enough of them. > In reality it is government's choice, to go for short term riches and maintaining power or act more ethically and think long term. Yeah, Macron tried to tax fuel more and there were widespread protests by "average French citizen", and he got metaphorically beaten up in the last election. The EU incumbents watered down green projects because of fear of losing to the rightwing populists. It's the sane choice for them to make, because I'd rather be governed by the somewhat sane center-right than lying manipulative populist hard-right, but the sane choice meant stepping away from the path of an ecological future. The summary is, if you try to be ethical, you get voted out of office, god bless democracy! /s