3 ms·
Would 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 ye
by Arnt 17d ago
Would 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 16d 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 16d 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 13d 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 12d 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.