9 ms·

> Nothing will change until developed rich countries are starting to hurt. Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and c

by bko 8mo ago

> Nothing will change until developed rich countries are starting to hurt. Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and continue to do so. Not reduced as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for population growth, but reduced in absolute levels. It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries. There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions. So I think you have it opposite, how much pain do rich countries have to endure before they realize that their efforts are in vain. And before you say "that's because the West outsources all the dirty production to China", even trade adjusted emissions are down considerably and continue to be down. Please do some research if you're interested in this topic, it's not hard to do. Just follow the logical steps. 1. What causes global warming 2. Who produces most of these chemicals 3. Are there any global trends over the last 20 years in production of these chemicals https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/europes-crusade-against-air-conditioning https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/europes-crusade-against-air-co...

nicoburns 8mo ago
A reminder that reducing emissions isn't enough. We actually need them to be net-negative.
- epistasis 8mo ago
  Eventually we want to get there, post 2050, but at a very low rate compared to our net emissions right now. Still, it's far cheaper to avoid emitting now than it is to pull it down later, so every time you drive your kids to school remember the debt you are saddling them with.
gzread 8mo ago
China is some years behind our industrial development then undevelopment, and is building an entire USA of solar panels every year or whatever - can we expect them to quickly reduce emissions soon?
- bko 8mo ago
  I thought the world and civilization would collapse because of carbon emissions. It's either serious or it's not. If it's serious then it doesn't really matter right? It's like you're on a boat that sprung a leak and everyone grabs a bucket. But a few people choose to not help because it's not fair for whatever reason.
  - thfuran 8mo ago
    What?
    - bko 8mo ago
      The point is that China is the only thing that matters at this point. It's a lot bigger, has surpassed OECD and is growing quickly. Every decline of emissions by developed countries is more than made up for by growing China emissions
      - islandfox100 8mo ago
        https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... Chinese emissions have peaked and are now falling.
      - mbgerring 8mo ago
        Emissions in China are not growing, and Chinese manufacturing is largely responsible for falling emissions in developed countries
      - triceratops 8mo ago
        > It's a lot bigger, has surpassed OECD and is growing quickly Please stop lying. It hasn't cumulatively emitted as much as the OECD [1], and cumulative emissions are the cause of our current predicament. It's also doing the opposite of growing. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...
daed 8mo ago
> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and continue to do so Any idea what percentage of this reduction is due to offshoring manufacturing?
- bko 8mo ago
  Keep reading the comment, pretty much the same. > https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
krd8ssb 8mo ago
To add to this, no matter what countries do, we can make our local environments nicer to live in by reducing pollution but across the globe, solar activity has exponentially more, and the ultimate impact. With the magnetic field weakening, it's going to continue going in this direction as it has throughout history. I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to make our local environment better and protect and Preserve what we have. We absolutely should. I'm just stating that this is not the first time the Earth has heated or cooled and nothing that we do will ultimately stop it from this cycle from continuing.
- iknowstuff 8mo ago
  You’ve been misinformed. Yes solar activity fluctuates. Human induced climate change is still real and affecting temperatures much more rapidly.
HappyPanacea 8mo ago
> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions. What restrictions are there on AC?
- bko 8mo ago
  Several EU countries have mandatory temperature limits for air conditioning in public buildings. Spain, Italy, and Greece have all announced that A/C in public buildings cannot be set lower than 27C (80F) in summer Some exceptions allow up to 25C like restaurants and some work places. The EU's F-Gas Regulation creates significant restrictions on refrigerants used in air conditioning There's significant red tape when installing AC due to building regulations 90% of US homes have AC while only 20% of European homes have it, I don't think that's by accident. Fun fact, some EU countries even have laws telling you how much you can open your windows! In the UK, there is a law that in any public building, windows must not open more than 100mm (about 4 inches).
  - sofixa 8mo ago
    Are you claiming there are restrictions on installing ACs, or there are restrictions on how those installed are used? The two are quite different arguments. And 27C is a completely normal temperature. When it's 35C outside, you're better off with a minimised thermal shock with a small difference, instead of going at it the US South or Dubai style where inside it's 18C, so all everyone does is move from one air conditioned place to another (home to car to office to car to mall to home).
  - iknowstuff 8mo ago
    Newer refrigerants with lower GWP are great actually. That’s not a restriction on installing AC. Your mentions PUBLIC building policies are irrelevant
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    > Spain, Italy, and Greece have all announced that A/C in public buildings cannot be set lower than 27C (80F) in summer So?
crystal_revenge 8mo ago
> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and continue to do so. Our economies are built on oil burning somewhere else in the world. You can try to point the blame at China, but the wealth generated in the middle east selling them oil is a major part of the reason why US stock markets keep going up. If you forced China to use less fossil fuels you would personally feel a much larger hit to your quality of life. We in the developed world love to outsource the violence and environmental damage we cause. It's one thing to wash your hands, but quite another to then try to point the finger.
- Retric 8mo ago
  > If you forced China to use less fossil fuels you would personally feel a much larger hit to your quality of life. America imports more from Mexico, Canada, and the EU than China which ranks as #4 when you consider EU as a single entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Imports from China are a small fraction of GDP and offset by exports to other countries. OECD countries are largely exporting labor not the kind of heavy industry associated with heavy CO2 emissions. Which makes sense as China has relatively cheap labor, but they don’t get a discount on Oil.
  - crystal_revenge 8mo ago
    > Mexico, Canada, and the EU Do you want to take a wild guess as to which country is a top 3 importer to all of these countries/regions? Here's a clue: it's the same country that is a major exporter of oil from GCC countries, and the wealth from those GCC countries is a major contributor of investment to US industry/financial sector. The correct answer, is of course: China The global is economy is very tightly interconnected and still very much driven by oil and fossil fuels in general. You can do all the accounting tricks you want, but developed Western lifestyles, especially in the US, are entirely supported and made possible by growing global fossil fuel usage.
    - Retric 8mo ago
hanspeter 8mo ago
> 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC Please don’t repeat this anti-Europe myth. Anyone applying a bit of common sense should realize how improbable that claim is.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
exceptione 8mo ago
Don't do the AC thing, it is a stupid trope under blogfluencers. There are no restrictions (besides positioning the outer unit in such a way that you cause your neighbors to lose sleep). As the summers get more extreme in Europe, more residents decide getting one is starting to pay off, so you see more AC's, but many people think they are doing fine without.
- cataphract 8mo ago
  Yeah, never heard of such a thing. The restrictions are placing the units in common areas of the buildings -- in that case you need permission -- and external walls are usually common parts. Placing them in the façade may have additional restrictions. But, if anything, energy efficiency standards for new construction are so strict that heat is becoming less of a problem.
- bko 8mo ago
  I can easily google restrictions and share them, and I have in other comments but let me throw it back at you. Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Why does US have ~4 heat related deaths per million while Europe has ~235 per million? Do you think it's just stupidity (Europeans don't know the relationship between heat and AC)? Or poverty? Any other explanation? https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766
  - ViewTrick1002 8mo ago
    > Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Because Rome is further north than New York and Paris is just south of Ottawa/Montreal.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      Raw latitude hardly tells the entire story.
  - myrmidon 8mo ago
    > Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Maybe because the majority of Europe is closer to Canada, latitude-wise, than to Phoenix, AZ, and there is simply less demand? Less wealth is certainly a factor, too, especially considering how the warmest nations in Europe all tend to be weaker economically. > Why does US have ~4 heat related deaths per million while Europe has ~235 per million? Maybe its just the higher life expectancy increasing susceptibility? Everyone has to die of something at some point.
myrmidon 8mo ago
> It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries. This is just a naive take. You'd obviously expect chinese emissions to be higher (than the US) assuming similar industrialization, because you are counting emissions for like triple the amount of people. What you conveniently fail to mention: US citizens still emit over 50% more CO2 each, and China basically just caught up to emission levels of developed countries (EU, Japan), while still being significantly below US levels. High income countries combined still emit more than China, too (richest ~15% globally). If your argument would make any sense, then the obvious solution would be to split China into 3 countries, making the emissions instantly negligible compared to the EU/US. Problem solved?! There is no reality where we make good progress toward climate change without the "main culprits" (=> nations with highest historical and per-capita emissions) making the first steps. Why would a country like India pay/sacrifice to reduce emissions while western citizens still pollute at much higher levels after reaping all the spoils from historical pollution? You could argue that wind/solar is a huge success story in this regard already, with western nations driving lots of the research/development/commercialization efforts (over the previous decades) and now indirectly causing much bigger nations like China to transition onto those very quickly instead of basically fully relying on fossils for decades to come.
- cataphract 8mo ago
  > Why would a country like India pay/sacrifice to reduce emissions while western citizens still pollute at much higher levels after reaping all the spoils from historical pollution? To avoid their country having large regions become uninhabitable?
  - myrmidon 8mo ago
    Even for a giant country like India you control <20% of global population, and you are responsible for much less than 20% of the effect (climate change). So why would India take more expensive and painful steps than say, the US or EU, or Japan? India both indisputably affects and controls climate change less then the US or EU, so why would they put in completely outsized amounts of effort to fight it?
maxglute 8mo ago
Euro intransience about AC is confusing. As for PRC, they brrrted out enough solar last year to replace about 40 billion barrels of oil over their life time, or about annual global consumption of oil @100m barrels per day. They have enough renewable manufacturing capacity to displace global oil, lng and good chunk of coal. PRC is basically manufacturing the largest carbon displacement, i.e. emission avoidance system in the world, and if not for them, global fossil consumption would double+. It's even more retarded accounting that taxes PRC manufacturing renewables as generation emissions while fossils extractors, i.e. US whose massively increased oil/lng exports do not count towards US emissions. At the end of the day, PRC's balance of emissions vs how much they displace via renewable manufacturing makes their emission contribution net negative, by a large margin. OCED countries reducing their emissions don't even compare in terms of contribution, it's borderline performative. OCED need to be reducing emissions and generating equivalent displacement to be net negative. It doesn't have to be domestic net negative, simply export/fund enough renewables to developing countries whose power consumption and downstream emissions will increase by magnitudes... you know subsidize them like OECD was suppose to do. Reality is rich countries don't want to do shit about the "global" emission problem, at least PRC selling renewables at commodity pricing to displace velocity of fossil consumption increase. Ultimately, 4 billion developing people going to 10/100x their energy consumption, which like AC is net moral good over net emissions. The real battle is how to keep new power use as emission free as possible, and only PRC is doing that in numbers that matter. Wanking over OCED reducing their emissions is overlooking OCED was suppose to help developing countries minimize (not reduce) as they grow. All OCED has to do is give PRC renewables the 100b they once pledged on to help developing countries transition for PRC to run renewables manufacturing at 100% utilization (or even expand) so significant % of new power generation is renewables. 100b at current PRC prices of $0.1O/watt buys about 1000GW of panels (enough to power all of Africa & India and more). Or OECD can manufacture at sell at/below cost themselves.
triceratops 8mo ago
> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 OECD countries' past emissions are causing the warming we see today. > and continue to do so China's emissions declined last year. The US's increased. > It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries. China used their emissions to make solar and batteries the cheapest source of electricity today.
- ezst 8mo ago
  > OECD countries' past emissions are causing the warming we see today. China passed EU's cumulative emissions in 2014, if I remember correctly. It's totally fair to blame industrialised countries for their share in causing global warming, irrespective if that happened in the early days of industrialisation and was propped up by dirty energy sources. Though, it's morally much harder to give a pass to countries polluting now using the same sources.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    > China passed EU's cumulative emissions in 2014 Not yet according to https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-.... > it's morally much harder to give a pass to countries polluting now using the same sources Developed countries should subsidize their use of cleaner energy sources. That balances things out, morally speaking.
sofixa 8mo ago
> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions Where in Europe are ACs restricted because of carbon emissions? Even in France with very strong building codes (you can't just plop an AC on your own, you need approvals), ACs are the standard in the south where they are needed for long periods of the year.
drnick1 8mo ago
> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions. Which restrictions on AC? I know that Europeans don't use AC as much as the US because of a mixture of historical and cultural reasons, but I wasn't aware of any restrictions. What prevents someone in Europe from buying and installing an AC unit in their own home?
- vladvasiliu 8mo ago
  Here in France, where you need a bureaucrat to sign off some paper for another bureaucrat, and where we levy taxes on taxes, I'm not aware of any restriction on AC from the state. Sure, the politicians say we should put up with sweltering heat, unlike them who have reasons to run their cars' engines for hours while they sit around in useless committees inside air-conditioned historical buildings. But there's no law against AC yet. What usually happens, is that most people live in cities. And in cities, they have to get a permit from the HOA and from the city, lest the outside unit deface some historically significant square concrete building (yeah, I know there are actually historically significant buildings, ugly concrete ones built after 1950 aren't among them, though they're where the majority of the people live).
nostrademons 8mo ago
The "Our World in Data" citation cuts off right as China's emissions started to decline. More recent data [1] indicates that China's emissions have been flat or falling since the beginning of 2024, and falling fast in the last quarter of 2025 (1%, which is huge on a quarterly basis). China's decarbonization & renewable efforts have been paying off in a big way. EVs now have a 51% market share among new vehicles [2], exceeding every single major city in the U.S [3] (though the SF Bay Area comes close). Likewise, renewables are 84.4% of its new power plants in 2025 [4]. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... [2] https://electrek.co/2025/08/29/electric-vehicles-reach-tipping-point-china-surge-51-market-share/ https://electrek.co/2025/08/29/electric-vehicles-reach-tippi... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/06/climate/hybrid-electric-vehicle-popular.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/06/climate/hybri... [4] https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2025/11/4/chinas-newly-installed-renewable-energy-capacity-up-477-year-on-year-in-first-three-quarters https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2025/11/4/chinas-newly-inst...
tlogan 8mo ago
The IEA says China’s CO₂ emissions rose by 565 Mt in 2023 to 12.6 Gt, which it states was a 4.7% increase from 2022. So any emission reduction done by developed countries is offset by China.
- triceratops 7mo ago
  And then China's emissions declined in 2025. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292
  - tlogan 7mo ago
    The stats for 2025 are yet official. The quote from your link: > China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 1% in the final quarter of 2025, likely securing a decline of 0.3% for the full year as a whole So, increase of 4.7% and then (likely) decrease of 0.3% is a great progress? I would rather wait for official IEA data before claiming victory: https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions

by bko 8mo ago

nicoburns 8mo ago

A reminder that reducing emissions isn't enough. We actually need them to be net-negative.

epistasis 8mo ago
Eventually we want to get there, post 2050, but at a very low rate compared to our net emissions right now. Still, it's far cheaper to avoid emitting now than it is to pull it down later, so every time you drive your kids to school remember the debt you are saddling them with.

gzread 8mo ago

China is some years behind our industrial development then undevelopment, and is building an entire USA of solar panels every year or whatever - can we expect them to quickly reduce emissions soon?

bko 8mo ago
I thought the world and civilization would collapse because of carbon emissions. It's either serious or it's not. If it's serious then it doesn't really matter right? It's like you're on a boat that sprung a leak and everyone grabs a bucket. But a few people choose to not help because it's not fair for whatever reason.
- thfuran 8mo ago
  What?
  - bko 8mo ago
    The point is that China is the only thing that matters at this point. It's a lot bigger, has surpassed OECD and is growing quickly. Every decline of emissions by developed countries is more than made up for by growing China emissions
    - islandfox100 8mo ago
      https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... Chinese emissions have peaked and are now falling.
    - mbgerring 8mo ago
      Emissions in China are not growing, and Chinese manufacturing is largely responsible for falling emissions in developed countries
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      > It's a lot bigger, has surpassed OECD and is growing quickly Please stop lying. It hasn't cumulatively emitted as much as the OECD [1], and cumulative emissions are the cause of our current predicament. It's also doing the opposite of growing. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...

daed 8mo ago

> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and continue to do so Any idea what percentage of this reduction is due to offshoring manufacturing?

bko 8mo ago
Keep reading the comment, pretty much the same. > https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

krd8ssb 8mo ago

To add to this, no matter what countries do, we can make our local environments nicer to live in by reducing pollution but across the globe, solar activity has exponentially more, and the ultimate impact. With the magnetic field weakening, it's going to continue going in this direction as it has throughout history. I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to make our local environment better and protect and Preserve what we have. We absolutely should. I'm just stating that this is not the first time the Earth has heated or cooled and nothing that we do will ultimately stop it from this cycle from continuing.

iknowstuff 8mo ago
You’ve been misinformed. Yes solar activity fluctuates. Human induced climate change is still real and affecting temperatures much more rapidly.

HappyPanacea 8mo ago

bko 8mo ago
Several EU countries have mandatory temperature limits for air conditioning in public buildings. Spain, Italy, and Greece have all announced that A/C in public buildings cannot be set lower than 27C (80F) in summer Some exceptions allow up to 25C like restaurants and some work places. The EU's F-Gas Regulation creates significant restrictions on refrigerants used in air conditioning There's significant red tape when installing AC due to building regulations 90% of US homes have AC while only 20% of European homes have it, I don't think that's by accident. Fun fact, some EU countries even have laws telling you how much you can open your windows! In the UK, there is a law that in any public building, windows must not open more than 100mm (about 4 inches).
- sofixa 8mo ago
  Are you claiming there are restrictions on installing ACs, or there are restrictions on how those installed are used? The two are quite different arguments. And 27C is a completely normal temperature. When it's 35C outside, you're better off with a minimised thermal shock with a small difference, instead of going at it the US South or Dubai style where inside it's 18C, so all everyone does is move from one air conditioned place to another (home to car to office to car to mall to home).
- iknowstuff 8mo ago
  Newer refrigerants with lower GWP are great actually. That’s not a restriction on installing AC. Your mentions PUBLIC building policies are irrelevant
- triceratops 8mo ago
  > Spain, Italy, and Greece have all announced that A/C in public buildings cannot be set lower than 27C (80F) in summer So?

crystal_revenge 8mo ago

> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 and continue to do so. Our economies are built on oil burning somewhere else in the world. You can try to point the blame at China, but the wealth generated in the middle east selling them oil is a major part of the reason why US stock markets keep going up. If you forced China to use less fossil fuels you would personally feel a much larger hit to your quality of life. We in the developed world love to outsource the violence and environmental damage we cause. It's one thing to wash your hands, but quite another to then try to point the finger.

Retric 8mo ago
> If you forced China to use less fossil fuels you would personally feel a much larger hit to your quality of life. America imports more from Mexico, Canada, and the EU than China which ranks as #4 when you consider EU as a single entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Imports from China are a small fraction of GDP and offset by exports to other countries. OECD countries are largely exporting labor not the kind of heavy industry associated with heavy CO2 emissions. Which makes sense as China has relatively cheap labor, but they don’t get a discount on Oil.
- crystal_revenge 8mo ago
  > Mexico, Canada, and the EU Do you want to take a wild guess as to which country is a top 3 importer to all of these countries/regions? Here's a clue: it's the same country that is a major exporter of oil from GCC countries, and the wealth from those GCC countries is a major contributor of investment to US industry/financial sector. The correct answer, is of course: China The global is economy is very tightly interconnected and still very much driven by oil and fossil fuels in general. You can do all the accounting tricks you want, but developed Western lifestyles, especially in the US, are entirely supported and made possible by growing global fossil fuel usage.
  - Retric 8mo ago

hanspeter 8mo ago

> 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC Please don’t repeat this anti-Europe myth. Anyone applying a bit of common sense should realize how improbable that claim is.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

exceptione 8mo ago

Don't do the AC thing, it is a stupid trope under blogfluencers. There are no restrictions (besides positioning the outer unit in such a way that you cause your neighbors to lose sleep). As the summers get more extreme in Europe, more residents decide getting one is starting to pay off, so you see more AC's, but many people think they are doing fine without.

cataphract 8mo ago
Yeah, never heard of such a thing. The restrictions are placing the units in common areas of the buildings -- in that case you need permission -- and external walls are usually common parts. Placing them in the façade may have additional restrictions. But, if anything, energy efficiency standards for new construction are so strict that heat is becoming less of a problem.
bko 8mo ago
I can easily google restrictions and share them, and I have in other comments but let me throw it back at you. Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Why does US have ~4 heat related deaths per million while Europe has ~235 per million? Do you think it's just stupidity (Europeans don't know the relationship between heat and AC)? Or poverty? Any other explanation? https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766
- ViewTrick1002 8mo ago
  > Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Because Rome is further north than New York and Paris is just south of Ottawa/Montreal.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    Raw latitude hardly tells the entire story.
- myrmidon 8mo ago
  > Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Maybe because the majority of Europe is closer to Canada, latitude-wise, than to Phoenix, AZ, and there is simply less demand? Less wealth is certainly a factor, too, especially considering how the warmest nations in Europe all tend to be weaker economically. > Why does US have ~4 heat related deaths per million while Europe has ~235 per million? Maybe its just the higher life expectancy increasing susceptibility? Everyone has to die of something at some point.

myrmidon 8mo ago

> It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries. This is just a naive take. You'd obviously expect chinese emissions to be higher (than the US) assuming similar industrialization, because you are counting emissions for like triple the amount of people. What you conveniently fail to mention: US citizens still emit over 50% more CO2 each, and China basically just caught up to emission levels of developed countries (EU, Japan), while still being significantly below US levels. High income countries combined still emit more than China, too (richest ~15% globally). If your argument would make any sense, then the obvious solution would be to split China into 3 countries, making the emissions instantly negligible compared to the EU/US. Problem solved?! There is no reality where we make good progress toward climate change without the "main culprits" (=> nations with highest historical and per-capita emissions) making the first steps. Why would a country like India pay/sacrifice to reduce emissions while western citizens still pollute at much higher levels after reaping all the spoils from historical pollution? You could argue that wind/solar is a huge success story in this regard already, with western nations driving lots of the research/development/commercialization efforts (over the previous decades) and now indirectly causing much bigger nations like China to transition onto those very quickly instead of basically fully relying on fossils for decades to come.

cataphract 8mo ago
> Why would a country like India pay/sacrifice to reduce emissions while western citizens still pollute at much higher levels after reaping all the spoils from historical pollution? To avoid their country having large regions become uninhabitable?
- myrmidon 8mo ago
  Even for a giant country like India you control <20% of global population, and you are responsible for much less than 20% of the effect (climate change). So why would India take more expensive and painful steps than say, the US or EU, or Japan? India both indisputably affects and controls climate change less then the US or EU, so why would they put in completely outsized amounts of effort to fight it?

maxglute 8mo ago

Euro intransience about AC is confusing. As for PRC, they brrrted out enough solar last year to replace about 40 billion barrels of oil over their life time, or about annual global consumption of oil @100m barrels per day. They have enough renewable manufacturing capacity to displace global oil, lng and good chunk of coal. PRC is basically manufacturing the largest carbon displacement, i.e. emission avoidance system in the world, and if not for them, global fossil consumption would double+. It's even more retarded accounting that taxes PRC manufacturing renewables as generation emissions while fossils extractors, i.e. US whose massively increased oil/lng exports do not count towards US emissions. At the end of the day, PRC's balance of emissions vs how much they displace via renewable manufacturing makes their emission contribution net negative, by a large margin. OCED countries reducing their emissions don't even compare in terms of contribution, it's borderline performative. OCED need to be reducing emissions and generating equivalent displacement to be net negative. It doesn't have to be domestic net negative, simply export/fund enough renewables to developing countries whose power consumption and downstream emissions will increase by magnitudes... you know subsidize them like OECD was suppose to do. Reality is rich countries don't want to do shit about the "global" emission problem, at least PRC selling renewables at commodity pricing to displace velocity of fossil consumption increase. Ultimately, 4 billion developing people going to 10/100x their energy consumption, which like AC is net moral good over net emissions. The real battle is how to keep new power use as emission free as possible, and only PRC is doing that in numbers that matter. Wanking over OCED reducing their emissions is overlooking OCED was suppose to help developing countries minimize (not reduce) as they grow. All OCED has to do is give PRC renewables the 100b they once pledged on to help developing countries transition for PRC to run renewables manufacturing at 100% utilization (or even expand) so significant % of new power generation is renewables. 100b at current PRC prices of $0.1O/watt buys about 1000GW of panels (enough to power all of Africa & India and more). Or OECD can manufacture at sell at/below cost themselves.

triceratops 8mo ago

> Ironic OECD countries actually REDUCED their emissions based on a peak in 2007 OECD countries' past emissions are causing the warming we see today. > and continue to do so China's emissions declined last year. The US's increased. > It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries. China used their emissions to make solar and batteries the cheapest source of electricity today.

ezst 8mo ago
> OECD countries' past emissions are causing the warming we see today. China passed EU's cumulative emissions in 2014, if I remember correctly. It's totally fair to blame industrialised countries for their share in causing global warming, irrespective if that happened in the early days of industrialisation and was propped up by dirty energy sources. Though, it's morally much harder to give a pass to countries polluting now using the same sources.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  > China passed EU's cumulative emissions in 2014 Not yet according to https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-.... > it's morally much harder to give a pass to countries polluting now using the same sources Developed countries should subsidize their use of cleaner energy sources. That balances things out, morally speaking.

sofixa 8mo ago

> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions Where in Europe are ACs restricted because of carbon emissions? Even in France with very strong building codes (you can't just plop an AC on your own, you need approvals), ACs are the standard in the south where they are needed for long periods of the year.

drnick1 8mo ago

> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions. Which restrictions on AC? I know that Europeans don't use AC as much as the US because of a mixture of historical and cultural reasons, but I wasn't aware of any restrictions. What prevents someone in Europe from buying and installing an AC unit in their own home?

vladvasiliu 8mo ago
Here in France, where you need a bureaucrat to sign off some paper for another bureaucrat, and where we levy taxes on taxes, I'm not aware of any restriction on AC from the state. Sure, the politicians say we should put up with sweltering heat, unlike them who have reasons to run their cars' engines for hours while they sit around in useless committees inside air-conditioned historical buildings. But there's no law against AC yet. What usually happens, is that most people live in cities. And in cities, they have to get a permit from the HOA and from the city, lest the outside unit deface some historically significant square concrete building (yeah, I know there are actually historically significant buildings, ugly concrete ones built after 1950 aren't among them, though they're where the majority of the people live).

nostrademons 8mo ago

The "Our World in Data" citation cuts off right as China's emissions started to decline. More recent data [1] indicates that China's emissions have been flat or falling since the beginning of 2024, and falling fast in the last quarter of 2025 (1%, which is huge on a quarterly basis). China's decarbonization & renewable efforts have been paying off in a big way. EVs now have a 51% market share among new vehicles [2], exceeding every single major city in the U.S [3] (though the SF Bay Area comes close). Likewise, renewables are 84.4% of its new power plants in 2025 [4]. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... [2] https://electrek.co/2025/08/29/electric-vehicles-reach-tipping-point-china-surge-51-market-share/ https://electrek.co/2025/08/29/electric-vehicles-reach-tippi... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/06/climate/hybrid-electric-vehicle-popular.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/06/climate/hybri... [4] https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2025/11/4/chinas-newly-installed-renewable-energy-capacity-up-477-year-on-year-in-first-three-quarters https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2025/11/4/chinas-newly-inst...

tlogan 8mo ago

The IEA says China’s CO₂ emissions rose by 565 Mt in 2023 to 12.6 Gt, which it states was a 4.7% increase from 2022. So any emission reduction done by developed countries is offset by China.

triceratops 7mo ago
And then China's emissions declined in 2025. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292
- tlogan 7mo ago
  The stats for 2025 are yet official. The quote from your link: > China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 1% in the final quarter of 2025, likely securing a decline of 0.3% for the full year as a whole So, increase of 4.7% and then (likely) decrease of 0.3% is a great progress? I would rather wait for official IEA data before claiming victory: https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions