4 ms·

> But don't forget China still emit 16B compared to US who emit 6B tons of CO2 China has 1.4 billion people, while U.S. has 340 million people.

by Liwink 1y ago

closewith 1y ago
And the US, like most of the West, had outsourced their most carbon intensive manufacturing.
- tonfa 1y ago
  And looking at historical emissions, US contributed 25% of all emissions vs China 15%.
bialpio 1y ago
Per capita is a better metric but it's worth noting that China is world's factory - it's easy to reduce emissions if you offshore a lot of your production elsewhere...
- beej71 1y ago
  And China has the US beat per capita in emissions.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    Those people aren't making decisions. Measure emissions per government. They have one government. The factories are responsible for the pollution from goods, and the state is responsible for the factories it controls.
nerpderp82 1y ago
And China makes all of our stuff. Instead of putting tariffs on solar from China, we should have dropped a trillion dollars on it and put it everywhere.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Before you drop a trillion dollars, you do a cost benefit analysis and you factor for switching costs, the unique geography and population distribution of the U.S. the expected lifespan of solar panels, the battery install capacity necessary to facilitate nighttime and 100 to 1000 year weather event emergencies, the capacity to keep the grid online in the event of a world war, the cost to install HV lines to transport from solar hubs, etc. You don't dogmatically order $1 trillion of something and sacrifice a functional independent, diverse, weather resilient, geographically distributed energy grid thats served the nation that invented the light bulb for over 125 years, because you read a clickbait headline about China.
  - craftkiller 1y ago
    > the capacity to keep the grid online in the event of a world war If I'm learning anything from Russia, its that fossil fuel plants are hella vulnerable in a war. Solar would be much safer. Fossil Fuel Plant: Knock out the right machine or building and you knock out the plant. The plant is literally storing explosives. The plant must be resupplied which leaves supply trucks/boats/pipelines vulnerable. Solar: Distributed over a large area. Made of many independent complete power-generating devices so if you knock out 5% of them, all you've accomplished is reducing power output by 5%. Does not need a constant flow of supplies.
  - nerpderp82 1y ago
    > sacrifice a functional .... Who said we are sacrificing anything? We only gain, and we gain a distributed, diverse, < $1watt of generating capacity. Your comment makes no sense.

> But don't forget China still emit 16B compared to US who emit 6B tons of CO2 China has 1.4 billion people, while U.S. has 340 million people.

by Liwink 1y ago

> But don't forget China still emit 16B compared to US who emit 6B tons of CO2 China has 1.4 billion people, while U.S. has 340 million people.

closewith 1y ago

And the US, like most of the West, had outsourced their most carbon intensive manufacturing.

tonfa 1y ago
And looking at historical emissions, US contributed 25% of all emissions vs China 15%.

bialpio 1y ago

Per capita is a better metric but it's worth noting that China is world's factory - it's easy to reduce emissions if you offshore a lot of your production elsewhere...

beej71 1y ago
And China has the US beat per capita in emissions.
- card_zero 1y ago
  Those people aren't making decisions. Measure emissions per government. They have one government. The factories are responsible for the pollution from goods, and the state is responsible for the factories it controls.

nerpderp82 1y ago

And China makes all of our stuff. Instead of putting tariffs on solar from China, we should have dropped a trillion dollars on it and put it everywhere.

chrisco255 1y ago
Before you drop a trillion dollars, you do a cost benefit analysis and you factor for switching costs, the unique geography and population distribution of the U.S. the expected lifespan of solar panels, the battery install capacity necessary to facilitate nighttime and 100 to 1000 year weather event emergencies, the capacity to keep the grid online in the event of a world war, the cost to install HV lines to transport from solar hubs, etc. You don't dogmatically order $1 trillion of something and sacrifice a functional independent, diverse, weather resilient, geographically distributed energy grid thats served the nation that invented the light bulb for over 125 years, because you read a clickbait headline about China.
- craftkiller 1y ago
  > the capacity to keep the grid online in the event of a world war If I'm learning anything from Russia, its that fossil fuel plants are hella vulnerable in a war. Solar would be much safer. Fossil Fuel Plant: Knock out the right machine or building and you knock out the plant. The plant is literally storing explosives. The plant must be resupplied which leaves supply trucks/boats/pipelines vulnerable. Solar: Distributed over a large area. Made of many independent complete power-generating devices so if you knock out 5% of them, all you've accomplished is reducing power output by 5%. Does not need a constant flow of supplies.
- nerpderp82 1y ago
  > sacrifice a functional .... Who said we are sacrificing anything? We only gain, and we gain a distributed, diverse, < $1watt of generating capacity. Your comment makes no sense.