3 ms·
If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights. I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do in
by SXX 1mo ago
If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights.
I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do inside their country, but China is net positive for the world.
Refreshing considering how more and more of western countries are controlled by populists and / or delussional billionare overlords who reject global warming, vaccines, nuclear energy, etc.
- AuthAuth 1mo agoif not for China emissions wouldnt have gone past the point of no return.
- orangeboats 1mo agoThe majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.
- AuthAuth 1mo agoSo what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.
- orangeboats 1mo agoI think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China? Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
- AuthAuth 1mo agoChina was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
- orangeboats 1mo agoIt is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.
- AuthAuth 28d agoPer captia data is not useful because they have so many people who live rural lives without tech. Their urban class was doing well and causing a ton of pollution just like the US does. They then scaled up even more in the least emission efficient ways complete disregard for the damage it would do.
- Arnt 1mo agoWould not have done so yet you mean. The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.
- AuthAuth 1mo agoYou can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.
- Arnt 1mo agoSlowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration. It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before. Blaming China here is disingenious.
- AuthAuth 28d agoGive me the argument why China should be able to hockey stick their emissions graph after 2014 when the world had their climate accords. Now also apply that logic to india and africa.
- Arnt 26d agoSorry, no. What I'm saying is that we'd pass the point of no return independently of what China did, or India, or Africa. The countries that started emitting CO₂ earlier went on emitting, and that's enough for us to pass the point of no return. Everyone has to stop emitting CO₂. China's behaviour just changed the date a bit. Changed the date both directions, I'd say — China's building all those coal plants shifted the date in one direction, and China's building all those solar panels shifted the date in the other. The world's biggest change for good is IMHO the Chinese solar panels.
- deadfoxygrandpa 1mo agoyeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor
- AuthAuth 1mo agoAt the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.
- showmexyz 1mo agoComulative CO2 emissions tell a different story. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions
- AuthAuth 1mo agoemissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.
- digitalPhonix 1mo agoWhat does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"? The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.
- AuthAuth 1mo agoWeighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions. If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
- digitalPhonix 1mo agoSo whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear? I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
- AuthAuth 28d ago