Chinese President Xi Jinping said that by 2035 his country would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% to 10% from their peak, a day after President Donald Trump called climate change a “con job.”
it makes perfect sense. even if china is so far behind where they need to be, they’re still far ahead of where the US is at. the only reason you’re balking at this is your implicit bias that it’s not a western country in the lead.
China is ahead of the US, behind the EU and many other (Western and non-Western) countries (with almost no country or bloc is on track to reach the Paris agreement targets). These are simple facts. As the world’s largest polluter, China should do much more than it does, but it seems there is not even a willingness to do so.
I won’t comment on your accusation of being biased. I am not long here on Lemmy, but the reaction here if and when you criticize China is often weird. It’s certainly not all, but some people appear to be personally insulted if you just say something critical of this regime. That’s often not a sane reaction.
First, most credit should be based on recent years. You can only ask for relative progress, meaning improving year over year from recent progress instead of going from 0 to 100% renewables by tomorrow.
EU has greatest success in recent years in terms of emission reductions, but only because their energy growth has been slowing. China has much higher renewables growth from a much higher renewables base, but their emission reductions are more modest because of massive energy growth relative to massive manufacturing growth. At the same time, any growth rate at all from here is going to lead to massive emission reductions in upcomming years, just as it can continue in EU.
Trump’s UN speech is desperate extortion/war cry on EU and world to end breakthrough dead ender energy extermination on the cusp of clear human victory path.
do you have any data newer than 2023? because if you look at the per capita greenhouse gases in 2023, china is only at 32/33 and usa, canada, russia, australia etc. all have much worse pollution,
and i would like to know please, what statistics you are basing it on, that china is behind the eu, because at for me it feels like china is atleast trying to do a lot, while from the eu countries i only ever hear complains about having to do anything for the enviroment, which only gets worse by this right wing people popping up everywhere.
i would like it very much to be convinced that the eu countries are actually doing anything.
So are we not allowed to criticize china for their legitimate failures now? It’s all just because we’re butthurt because the US isn’t doing it? Fuck’s sake.
Criticizing the most prominent country for still utterly failing (and paying little more than lip-service to the problem) has very little to do with their skin being brown, and everything to do with criticism of the leader of the pack indicting the rest of the pack implicitly. But thank you for delegitimizing everything you might say in response by demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that you’re arguing in bad faith.
I love when people get called out for being shitty, and the immediate defense is “you’re arguing in bad faith”
this wasn’t an argument. you said something stupid, I called you out for it. instead of criticizing the western world for doing checks notes fucking nothing about climate change, you’re going after the country investing billions into the climate for no other reason than you don’t like the government.
I’d be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world - but it’s not, so that’s not really relevant commentary. If I showed up to say something like “why aren’t western countries doing better” it would be a valid point, but would absolutely not address the issue - that china is in no uncertain terms absolutely failing the environment. Trying to deflect that with accusations of racism is… transparent, at very least because you have yet to address the criticism but only the form my argument takes.
Why are you so biased that you can’t even accept criticism of a group you support might be legitimate in an article explicitly about the actions of said group? People from the US do that all the time, what makes China special?
I’d be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world
ok, I didn’t even read further than that in your comment because it’s obvious you did not read the article at all. even the headline itself should give you a fucking clue, but the article heavily relies on comparing China to the US. you would have known that if you had bothered to get over your knee-jerk reaction long enough to actually read it.
Sigh. 4 out of 13 of the paragraphs in that article are about trump’s behavior and there isn’t even a mention of another country besides the US and china. Kinda hard to criticize what just isn’t there (at least, if you’re arguing in good faith…)
Shockingly you continue to not address the criticism, just the form of the argument. I can’t imagine why that would be.
This doesn’t make sense. China’s new climate plans are insufficient as per a wide range of global experts claiming the 10% is by far not enough.
it makes perfect sense. even if china is so far behind where they need to be, they’re still far ahead of where the US is at. the only reason you’re balking at this is your implicit bias that it’s not a western country in the lead.
China is ahead of the US, behind the EU and many other (Western and non-Western) countries (with almost no country or bloc is on track to reach the Paris agreement targets). These are simple facts. As the world’s largest polluter, China should do much more than it does, but it seems there is not even a willingness to do so.
I won’t comment on your accusation of being biased. I am not long here on Lemmy, but the reaction here if and when you criticize China is often weird. It’s certainly not all, but some people appear to be personally insulted if you just say something critical of this regime. That’s often not a sane reaction.
First, most credit should be based on recent years. You can only ask for relative progress, meaning improving year over year from recent progress instead of going from 0 to 100% renewables by tomorrow.
EU has greatest success in recent years in terms of emission reductions, but only because their energy growth has been slowing. China has much higher renewables growth from a much higher renewables base, but their emission reductions are more modest because of massive energy growth relative to massive manufacturing growth. At the same time, any growth rate at all from here is going to lead to massive emission reductions in upcomming years, just as it can continue in EU.
Trump’s UN speech is desperate extortion/war cry on EU and world to end breakthrough dead ender energy extermination on the cusp of clear human victory path.
do you have any data newer than 2023? because if you look at the per capita greenhouse gases in 2023, china is only at 32/33 and usa, canada, russia, australia etc. all have much worse pollution,
and i would like to know please, what statistics you are basing it on, that china is behind the eu, because at for me it feels like china is atleast trying to do a lot, while from the eu countries i only ever hear complains about having to do anything for the enviroment, which only gets worse by this right wing people popping up everywhere. i would like it very much to be convinced that the eu countries are actually doing anything.
Not just emission but a broader picture of climate actions:
These are the largest emitters, you’ll find all others on the site.
thank you
So are we not allowed to criticize china for their legitimate failures now? It’s all just because we’re butthurt because the US isn’t doing it? Fuck’s sake.
the whole world is failing, and you’re picking the country in the lead to criticize? is it racism or what?
Criticizing the most prominent country for still utterly failing (and paying little more than lip-service to the problem) has very little to do with their skin being brown, and everything to do with criticism of the leader of the pack indicting the rest of the pack implicitly. But thank you for delegitimizing everything you might say in response by demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that you’re arguing in bad faith.
I love when people get called out for being shitty, and the immediate defense is “you’re arguing in bad faith”
this wasn’t an argument. you said something stupid, I called you out for it. instead of criticizing the western world for doing checks notes fucking nothing about climate change, you’re going after the country investing billions into the climate for no other reason than you don’t like the government.
I’d be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world - but it’s not, so that’s not really relevant commentary. If I showed up to say something like “why aren’t western countries doing better” it would be a valid point, but would absolutely not address the issue - that china is in no uncertain terms absolutely failing the environment. Trying to deflect that with accusations of racism is… transparent, at very least because you have yet to address the criticism but only the form my argument takes.
Why are you so biased that you can’t even accept criticism of a group you support might be legitimate in an article explicitly about the actions of said group? People from the US do that all the time, what makes China special?
ok, I didn’t even read further than that in your comment because it’s obvious you did not read the article at all. even the headline itself should give you a fucking clue, but the article heavily relies on comparing China to the US. you would have known that if you had bothered to get over your knee-jerk reaction long enough to actually read it.
Sigh. 4 out of 13 of the paragraphs in that article are about trump’s behavior and there isn’t even a mention of another country besides the US and china. Kinda hard to criticize what just isn’t there (at least, if you’re arguing in good faith…)
Shockingly you continue to not address the criticism, just the form of the argument. I can’t imagine why that would be.