6 ms·

With 2024 and 2023 being 2nd and 1st resp. The last 11 years were the hottest 11 in recorded history. I don't know how more evidence we need. We are standing on

With 2024 and 2023 being 2nd and 1st resp. The last 11 years were the hottest 11 in recorded history. I don't know how more evidence we need. We are standing on the train tracks, the train is coming, and many of us say "Oh just look over there instead, we'll be fine." Meanwhile - even if you do not care about climate - there is so much money to make with renewables (production, storage, mobility, etc). China and much of the rest of the world are charging ahead, while the US wants to be a petrol state.

RickJWagner 9mo ago
[flagged]
- cabirum 9mo ago
  Who are "we"? China population is 4 times the US, with carbon emissions just 3 times greater, making them produce less carbon per capita.
  - RickJWagner 9mo ago
    If we are judging per capital emissions, Australia, Canada and 11 other countries emit more than the US. China does do better, by 10 places. There are 182 countries doing better than China. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
    - jph00 9mo ago
      Obviously what matters is how much of the world’s products they produce - especially products that require high energy input. I can’t imagine why you think per capita is the appropriate statistic to compare. This has already been pointed out to you in this discussion, so it seems you are not actually engaging with the information you’re being provided with for some reason.
      - RickJWagner 9mo ago
        Perhaps you missed the nuance that the other person discussed per capita usage? My response was directed towards their line of discussion.
- ainiriand 9mo ago
  I am still confused why this argument is still valid to anyone... Not only China has 4 times more population than the US, but they produce all the stuff that the US buys, so if the US had to produce all that stuff on their own they would emit so much more carbon.
  - RickJWagner 9mo ago
    The US has no new coal plants under construction. 2024 had the highest number of Chinese plants in a decade.
    - WaxProlix 9mo ago
      They're adding capacity, not increasing utilization. Many new plants are smaller, more grid-friendly, more-efficient replacements for aging plants. Coal Utilization growth in China is negative and has been for years.
    - scotty79 9mo ago
      US has barely any new renewables (both manufacturing and installation) when compared to China. One virtue doesn't wipe thousand sins.
    - reitzensteinm 9mo ago
      Yet 2025 power sector emissions fell, which is quite discordant with the picture you're attempting to paint. https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?data=emissions&entity=China&chart=yoy_monthly&tab=change https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?dat...
rmitsch 9mo ago
There's no amount of evidence that'll help. We have had a sufficient amount of that for a long while. It's entrenched economic interests fostering a lack of political will that's keeping us from taking this seriously.
- networkadmin 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - card_zero 9mo ago
    Meh. I used to think that in about 1996. Sea levels weren't rising, environmentalists were (and some continue to be) alarmist media-whoring ideologues whose ideal solution is for us all to make ourselves very small and just live less. But these days I'm persuaded global warming is happening. I'm not sure why I was persuaded but I guess mainly because it got hotter. Edit: I have no idea now whether the downvotes are coming from denialists or environmentalists. Maybe both, we're all sensitive people.
    - qcnguy 9mo ago
      It getting hotter since 1996 doesn't imply there is any climate crisis. It's also compatible with regular overlapping cycles, or with natural cycles + a small amount of change from CO2 levels that doesn't rise to the level of being a problem. The temperature records are genuinely fraudulent. Investigate them in detail and anyone will see that it's true. They overstate the amount of warming considerably and try to hide the actual cycles that they once showed before climatologists started rewriting the past. But that also isn't incompatible with there being some warming. Probably the world got warmer since 1975, but before then it was getting cooler. That's why there was so much discussion of global cooling between 1945-1975. It's a history incompatible with industrialization having big effects.
      - Rodeoclash 9mo ago
        These arguments give me the same vibe that the reelecting trump arguments had prior to the last election. Obviously Trump is operating on a much faster timeline than climate change but I'd expect the same behaviour (i.e. all the sceptics vanishing) once we really start to feel the impacts of it and arguments like these lose the last final shreds of plausibility. I can't quite figure out the angle of why either. Are these the astro-turfing bots you hear so much about? How about I try this: Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for Jolo rice.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

RickJWagner 9mo ago

[flagged]

cabirum 9mo ago
Who are "we"? China population is 4 times the US, with carbon emissions just 3 times greater, making them produce less carbon per capita.
- RickJWagner 9mo ago
  If we are judging per capital emissions, Australia, Canada and 11 other countries emit more than the US. China does do better, by 10 places. There are 182 countries doing better than China. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
  - jph00 9mo ago
    Obviously what matters is how much of the world’s products they produce - especially products that require high energy input. I can’t imagine why you think per capita is the appropriate statistic to compare. This has already been pointed out to you in this discussion, so it seems you are not actually engaging with the information you’re being provided with for some reason.
    - RickJWagner 9mo ago
      Perhaps you missed the nuance that the other person discussed per capita usage? My response was directed towards their line of discussion.
ainiriand 9mo ago
I am still confused why this argument is still valid to anyone... Not only China has 4 times more population than the US, but they produce all the stuff that the US buys, so if the US had to produce all that stuff on their own they would emit so much more carbon.
- RickJWagner 9mo ago
  The US has no new coal plants under construction. 2024 had the highest number of Chinese plants in a decade.
  - WaxProlix 9mo ago
    They're adding capacity, not increasing utilization. Many new plants are smaller, more grid-friendly, more-efficient replacements for aging plants. Coal Utilization growth in China is negative and has been for years.
  - scotty79 9mo ago
    US has barely any new renewables (both manufacturing and installation) when compared to China. One virtue doesn't wipe thousand sins.
  - reitzensteinm 9mo ago
    Yet 2025 power sector emissions fell, which is quite discordant with the picture you're attempting to paint. https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?data=emissions&entity=China&chart=yoy_monthly&tab=change https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?dat...

rmitsch 9mo ago

There's no amount of evidence that'll help. We have had a sufficient amount of that for a long while. It's entrenched economic interests fostering a lack of political will that's keeping us from taking this seriously.

networkadmin 9mo ago
[flagged]
- card_zero 9mo ago
  Meh. I used to think that in about 1996. Sea levels weren't rising, environmentalists were (and some continue to be) alarmist media-whoring ideologues whose ideal solution is for us all to make ourselves very small and just live less. But these days I'm persuaded global warming is happening. I'm not sure why I was persuaded but I guess mainly because it got hotter. Edit: I have no idea now whether the downvotes are coming from denialists or environmentalists. Maybe both, we're all sensitive people.
  - qcnguy 9mo ago
    It getting hotter since 1996 doesn't imply there is any climate crisis. It's also compatible with regular overlapping cycles, or with natural cycles + a small amount of change from CO2 levels that doesn't rise to the level of being a problem. The temperature records are genuinely fraudulent. Investigate them in detail and anyone will see that it's true. They overstate the amount of warming considerably and try to hide the actual cycles that they once showed before climatologists started rewriting the past. But that also isn't incompatible with there being some warming. Probably the world got warmer since 1975, but before then it was getting cooler. That's why there was so much discussion of global cooling between 1945-1975. It's a history incompatible with industrialization having big effects.
    - Rodeoclash 9mo ago
      These arguments give me the same vibe that the reelecting trump arguments had prior to the last election. Obviously Trump is operating on a much faster timeline than climate change but I'd expect the same behaviour (i.e. all the sceptics vanishing) once we really start to feel the impacts of it and arguments like these lose the last final shreds of plausibility. I can't quite figure out the angle of why either. Are these the astro-turfing bots you hear so much about? How about I try this: Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for Jolo rice.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]