3 ms·
You're responding in a thread in which people are discounting the "actions", because "the Communist Party doesn't really want to decrease CO2" I demonstrated t
by berdario 2y ago
You're responding in a thread in which people are discounting the "actions", because "the Communist Party doesn't really want to decrease CO2"
I demonstrated that their words match their actions (ecology and energy policy wise)
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThey don't though. If they cared about CO2 then the amount of CO2 they emit would be decreasing over time, because that would be their priority over e.g. rapid growth or cost considerations. If they wanted to they could be shutting down coal plants and replacing them with solar or nuclear instead of building new coal burners in addition to solar, but they're not.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoIt is decreasing though. It's hard to put a precise date on it but some think it happened in 2023, some 2024, the official goal is peaking by 2030 (note they've hit other renewables goals by about 7 years) but generally it's agreed that it's flattened and about to decline, if it hasn't already, due to rapid renewable rollout.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> It is decreasing though. "The rate of increase is lower" is not the same as decreasing.
- berdario 2y agoYou should bother reading what you're replying to, because emissions are in fact decreasing... It's not simply the rate of increase Will that be sustained? We'll soon see, but let's not be ignorant of the progress being made