4 ms·
This sounds big but its less than the bare minimum required. Their coal emissions are insane. In my opinion its all anyone should be talking about when it comes
by AuthAuth 11mo ago
This sounds big but its less than the bare minimum required. Their coal emissions are insane. In my opinion its all anyone should be talking about when it comes to climate change.
- Mistletoe 11mo agoAren’t they bringing on incredible amounts of solar we could only dream about? Edit: for the downvoters https://gemini.google.com/app/6da2be1502b764f1 https://gemini.google.com/app/6da2be1502b764f1
- kulahan 11mo agoThey're building an insane amount of nuclear. It's the only thing with a hope in a country where a "small" city has like 6 million people.
- pinkgolem 11mo agoAre they? They build 10x more solar power (total numbers compared, in percentages solar nearly tripled since 2021, nuclear had a 10% increase) That seems more like a modest increase. Honestly solar seems to have an exponential growth, nuclear linear at best. Numbers from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
- munk-a 11mo agoAnd nuclear power - they have a large carbon deficit to make up so you shouldn't think of them as a green economy by any measure but... I think their strongest advantage is that there is a strong environmental pressure within the country and (while industrialists will be industrialists) there is no faction or movement within China that is dedicated to an anti-environmental agenda. There's a lot of work to be done and there's a lot of friction, corruption and economic pressures constraining that work but there seems to be a genuine desire to do that work.
- Mistletoe 11mo agoI wonder what kind of forest China is making? I was watching a really fascinating PBS documentary on Kanopy and it was talking about a lot of the planting efforts haven't been very good worldwide because planting a monoculture of trees doesn't do much and an old forest with tons of diversity stores twice as much carbon or more, which I thought was neat. So protecting existing forests is much better from a climate change standpoint. But either way, planting trees is better than nothing. https://www.kanopy.com/en/product/15418989 https://www.kanopy.com/en/product/15418989
- chrisweekly 11mo agoGiven the goal is to introduce trees to prevent desertification, in this case the relative benefits of old growth are irrelevant.
- mliker 11mo agowould you prefer zero trees being added?
- munk-a 11mo agoOf course not - but it is quite fair to examine articles like this with a critical eye given all the greenwashing that takes place.
- moron4hire 11mo agoLiking waffles!= Hating pancakes.
- dumbledoren 11mo agoTheir emissions are the emissions of Western companies for whom they are doing manufacturing.
- kwanbix 11mo agoAS if they don't consume the products themselves with their 1.2 billion people? My home country we are only 40 million. I am sure they consume much more than us.
- geysersam 11mo agoSo what? I'm sure I personally consume much less than your country of 40 million
- kwanbix 11mo agoThe point is China consumes a lot, for the rest of the world and for itself. Was pretty obvious, but I wrote it down for you as you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- quacked 11mo agoThe global economy is so China-dependent it doesn't even make sense to talk about an individual country's emissions profile unless we look at their imports.
- throwawaymaths 11mo agoThere are import corrected CO2 emissions data you can check if you care. Tl;Dr it's not as big as you think it is.
- 11mo ago
- lbrito 11mo agoCan you tell everyone what their per capita emission is? While you're at it, compare that with the US per capita emissions. Also let us know the accumulated emissions for China and US in the last 50 years. Thanks.
- mulmen 11mo agoPer capita emissions aren’t relevant to climate impact. Neither are relative emissions between countries. This is a global issue.
- vanviegen 11mo agoNo, but if some people are outputting way more CO2 than others, these are the ones we should be focussing on first.
- mulmen 11mo agoSerialization is a losing strategy here. “Focus” is irrelevant. We need fundamental shifts in energy production.
- api 11mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... The US is fairly high but below Canada, Russia, and many Middle Eastern countries. US emissions have also consistently fallen for the past 25 years or so.
- AuthAuth 11mo agoYes China is outputting way more C02 than the next 6 biggest pollutors combined. Lets focus on them first. They are the only ones not reducing their emission growth.
- the-smug-one 11mo agoPer capita emissions are relevant, because it shows how much each separate country needs to improve in a relative manner. Absolute emissions doesn't matter to what each state needs to do.
- voxelghost 11mo agoWell they're releasing 9.2ton CO2 per Capita, the US is releasing 13.5ton CO2 per Capita. And this while the US and the rest of the world is doing all of their manufacturing in China.
- GenerocUsername 11mo agoMaybe the rest of the world should stop doing their manufacturing in china.
- miroljub 11mo agoIt's called China, not china.
- ben_w 11mo agoIf we're going to pick nits, I'm fairly sure most of the Chinese population don't speak English, making it neither China nor china but 中华人民共和国 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
- geysersam 11mo agoThis is propaganda. It's impossible to take this comment in good faith
- AuthAuth 11mo agoThis article is propaganda. Its part of a green washing campaign China started a few years ago to offset their reputation of being a dirty country powered by coal. Think about how often you hear about China's solar despite it being a tiny part of their energy grid.
- geysersam 11mo agoIt's both a fact that China has significantly lower emissions per capita than the west, and that they need to eliminate coal from their energy mix to become carbon neutral. The propaganda aspect is comparing absolute emissions of China to the absolute emissions of some smaller nation. That's only done to confuse people and delay the transition to emission free energy production.
- nitwit005 11mo agoThe project wasn't started as a global warming fix. As the article notes, it was about preventing desertification: > Over the last three and a half decades China has planted roughly 120 million acres of forest, according to U.N. figures, much of it added to contain the spread of deserts. Last year China completed a project, begun in 1978, to plant a 2,000-mile-long belt of trees around the Taklamakan Desert in the west. Work continues on a belt of trees around the massive Gobi Desert in the north.
- hammock 11mo agoNot counting the gobi desert , China is only 5x the size of Texas so it’s nothing to sneeze at
- erikpukinskis 11mo ago“Their” coal emissions
- nQQKTz7dm27oZ 11mo ago[dead]