Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

NickwithaC ,
@NickwithaC@lemmy.world avatar

Good news for one of the planet's most polluting countries.

Nesola ,

That is producing for the rest of the world and especially for the west. It’s hypocritical to blame china while buying stuff that had to be cheaper and cheaper.

Gigan ,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

I don't think that absolves China of any blame. They're still choosing to produce cheap goods at the expense of the planet, because it's good business for them too.

essteeyou ,

If not them then it'd be someone else. Clearly they're starting to take polluting seriously.

If you look at CO2 emissions per capita then China is actually doing better than countries like Canada, the US, and Singapore. Assuming I haven't completely misread that table.

wikibot Bot ,

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

This is a list of sovereign states and territories by per capita carbon dioxide emissions due to certain forms of human activity, based on the EDGAR database created by European Commission. The following table lists the 1970, 1990, 2005, 2017 and 2022 annual per capita CO2 emissions estimates (in kilotons of CO2 per year). The data only consider carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry Over the last 150 years, estimated cumulative emissions from land use and land-use change represent approximately one-third of total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Emissions from international shipping or bunker fuels are also not included in national figures, which can make a large difference for small countries with important ports.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report finds that the "Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)" sector on average, accounted for 13-21% of global total anthropogenic GHG emissions in the period 2010–2019.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^
^article^ ^|^ ^about^

PatFussy ,

CO2 emissions are carefully curated and we are not even that good at calculating them. I wouldn't trust any of this info coming from China let alone from any nation.

nednobbins ,

Do you have a better metric?

PatFussy ,

Big dog 2 months... If you knew how companies figure out their pollution metrics you would be very sad.

As for a better metric, I don't know. Everything is tied to cost so it's really dumb

nednobbins ,

Not sure why you're so hung up on dogs or 2 months. The thread still shows up in searches and you're clearly getting updates on it.
Unless there's some evidence to suggest the information in this thread is now obsolete, there's no reason not to respond.

@esteeyou made a claim and provided evidence. Unless there's better evidence to the contrary it's reasonable to accept the claim. My children sometimes still respond to arguments with, "Nuh uh." I generally expect more from adults.

PatFussy ,

Yep you got me, I make shit up on the fly.

nednobbins ,

Apparently.

That's too bad.

PatFussy ,

Too bad why? You had a counterargument or something?

nednobbins ,

Because an informed response would have been more interesting.

PatFussy ,

Oh okay, I feel like responding now so I reread.

So the evidence they provided was what I said is carefully curated. I work in sustainability and I see how people mess with numbers. I also know info from China is famous for fudging numbers as well. I don't think CO2 is a good metric as it is difficult to track. The way companies track CO2 now is usually by spend so they convert $$$ to CO2 output through a calculator. It's really not efficient.

You asked me what is an alternative and I said I don't know. I really don't, unless we have a way of tracking what comes in and out of a business and how it is used.

nednobbins ,

OK It sounds like there's only one metric we can use to evaluate how much China pollutes.

The metric is widely used by various academics, government agencies and independent organizations. We have no better metric and that metric says that China doesn't pollute that much.

That leaves 2 possibilities; the metric actually provides no information at all or it still provides some information.

If it provides no information AND we don't have anything that does (ie a better metric) that means we literally have absolutely no information at all about how much China pollutes at all. That means we can't make any intelligent claims about how much China pollutes or how much they're fudging the number because there's no comparison to make.

If it does provide some information we're left with a situation where all of the imperfect information supports the claim that China doesn't pollute much.

Either way, the evidence as you've classified it, doesn't support the claim that China is, "one of the planet’s most polluting countries," which was the original claim of this thread. It is, by definition, a baseless conjecture.

PatFussy , (edited )

CO2 is NOT the only metric being captured by global agencies, it's just what was said in the comment above and is usually the target to showcase how responsible the use is basically. I am not saying that the metric in itself is bad but it is easy to mislead. China is not trustworthy when it comes to capturing data like this because their companies are basically required to make greater China look good. This is a separate beast.

If you look into how a body like the EPA calculates their emissions they reference the greenhouse protocol. In an ideal world, all use and all waste goes through a method like this protocol and individuals calculate their emissions. Governing bodies and academics alike would be using software to track each ounce of output based on raw materials. If you purchased or created a good, you should be able to track and show end of life for each individual component. This is just not the case. People don't know what is in the stuff they buy. There is a flurry of life cycle analyses cradle to gate or gate to gate or cradle to grave being produced currently to bridge this gap but it currently is not the standard for identifying output.

How does a company like Walmart track all of the emissions produced (by their farmers, their logistics, the raw material manufacturing, etc.) if it's difficult? The answer is they give ballpark numbers based on how much was purchased. Companies now have decided to use a number that was calculated based on various spends and convert that to output.

How does a country like the US measure then? In the US there are regulatory bodies that check if what we say is true but it's a complete joke. There waaaaaayyy too much data for these bodies to go through so they usually report whatever the company reports.

Circling back to China and why I say not to trust the CO2 calculations is that these companies are not trustworthy. I'll be honest I don't know if there are similar regulatory bodies in China for emissions but I doubt it. It's what allows companies to do illegal dumping into rivers and let's many claim net zero. I'm assuming based on the time you responded to me that you are in China so maybe you can elucidate me on how I get this wrong.

nednobbins ,

I agree that CO2 is an imperfect measure and you don't seem to be making the claim that CO2 has an SNR of 0 (ie it carries no information at all). We seem to agree on the core of your central three paragraphs so I won't comment on them.

You've stated multiple times now that you don't know any better measures than CO2. So even if there are other measures they're just as bad or worse. Given this lack of any better metric, on what verifiable evidence are you basing any of your conclusions?

I’m assuming based on the time you responded to me that you are in China so maybe you can elucidate me on how I get this wrong.

The same way you got your conclusions about China's pollution wrong, by misapplying evidence and jumping to conclusions.

It's interesting that you should phrase your question that way. The cheap answer would be to point out that you're not using "elucidate" correctly. You're missing a preposition. It's also odd to use "get" instead of "got" here.
A corrected version of your sentence might be, "...maybe you can elucidate to me how I got this wrong."
It's cheap in the sense that personal attacks are easy and do little to advance a conversation. It would be just as silly of me to use your grammar error as evidence that you're a foreign national as it is for you to use the timing of my posts as evidence of my location.

You might then suspect that I might still be a foreigner who's studied too much English grammar. That would be correct. It turns out that when I speak my native language, other native speakers can sometimes pinpoint the exact district in Vienna where I was born. These days, none of my neighbors speak German. They love the Sox and rock their "Dunkies".

Just as in the case of estimating China's pollution levels, cavalier use of evidence leads to erroneous conclusions.

PatFussy ,

English is not my first language either and I type the way I speak. So I might say things wrong but language was never my strong suit. I only commented because I have a friend from mainland China who only speaks around this time.

I hope we can both agree that using evaluations made by China is not always the best. I could have replaced CO2 with # of immigrants or %breast feeding and we would have the same issues. However, the use of CO2 as a metric for a developing country is specially odd given how difficult it is to track in places like the US for EU. Hence, I say don't trust it.

Can we agree there or is this all still baseless conjecture and erroneous conclusions?

nednobbins ,

I can certainly agree that there is no evidence to suggest that China is "one of the most polluting countries in the world". I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that claim. It is entirely baseless.

On the other hand, the claim that China's per capita pollution is lower than that of most industrialized nations is supported by evidence. It is the best evidence we have too, unless you've discovered a better metric in the last few days.

A claim that imperfect evidence is equivalent to no evidence is baseless and will lead to erroneous conclusions.

Rampsquatch ,

The average consumer doesn't actually have a choice in the matter. Unless you are wealthy enough to purchase only local artisan made goods near everything you can afford is made in China or made in China adjacent.

Cethin ,

That's not really the point. The point is their emissions will be higher because they're producing all the stuff everyone else purchases. The production is what creates pollution. If they stopped producing then other countries would and they would increase their pollution.

It's not saying don't buy products from China. It's saying China polluted because things are bought from them. The pollution would be wherever production is taking place.

Nesola ,

That is exactly my point. Thanks for elaborating it!

RaoulDook ,

Did you forget about the existence of regulations to control the pollution that manufacturing is allowed to produce? How about the countries who are allowing pollution to happen on a ridiculous scale fix their environmental regulations? It's not like they are under the rule of the USA and have to pollute because we say so.

dangblingus ,

You could simply not purchase as much crap. Half of the factories that supply the West's goods would go out of business if people stopped buying new phones and shitty plastics every full moon.

Land_Strider ,

Oh no, that's the freedom way. Gods forbid, they'd be living like the bland Soviet blocks otherwise.

rottingleaf ,

Gods forbid, they’d be living like the bland Soviet blocks otherwise.

Please don't exaggerate, to live like in late USSR you'd have to literally outlaw local non-state production.

They'd be living just fine. Everything would be more expensive, but with the way prices are connected to power balance and cheap Chinese workers affecting that balance on the side of producers, maybe not as expensive as people imagine.

where_am_i ,

Then you cannot complain about corporations moving jobs overseas. Clearly was the only way for the society to survive.

Sunfoil ,

They do. I boycott Chinese made goods, and I don't make much money. It just requires a small amount of introspection on if I need the item. It has actually turned out I buy much much less because what I do buy is of quality and lasts.

Cosmetics, Household goods and food are easy and generally fairly locally made and produced, unless you insist on buying exotic fruits or stuff way out of season.

Clothes, shoes, anything fabric, again easy. Massive market of quality eco-friendly EU/US/UK made stuff that means I pay $30 for a lovely shirt that will last me decades than $5 a shirt that was made by a child in Myanmar and fall apart within the year. So I am slowly developing a modest wardrobe of high quality natural fibres.

You don't really need much else. But it just takes a moment to Google and consume conscientiously.

Some stuff is nearly impossible and is actually outside of your control like fuel and SOME electrical devices. But nothing can be perfect.

gnygnygny ,

Just remove "made in China" from your basket. And buy just what you need. It's my a good beginning.

fruitycoder ,

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

If I don't need it to work or live I don't buy it from places I know have a slave labor issue or any other ethics concerns.

Another thing that help, ad block. Honestly advertising is brain rot and why a lot of people feel a compulsion to buy land fill filler.

RememberTheApollo ,

No, it’s not hypocritical. Yes, anyone with half a brain knows China makes a huge chunk of the world’s stuff.

A nation can make choices as to what energy sources they use and China went balls to the wall with coal. That wasn’t a choice the buyers of Chinese products made.

Land_Strider ,

Lol look what they are spending the money they earn from those industries. At least they are not solely funding decades long genocide but actually doing something about the emissions they take on.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Tibet

Uyghers

brain_in_a_box ,

Anyone still repeating the Uighur genocide conspiracy theory in this day and age - long after the western media has backed away from it, independent bodies have found no evidence, Isreal demonstrating that you can’t ‘secretly’ genocide a population without evidence getting out, and all the original proponents of the conspiracy now one hundred percent on board for the genocide of Palestinians - is either knowingly lying or terminally propagandized.

I mean, it was all ways clear that it was an accusation designed to distract and minimize the actual genocides of Muslims being carried out by the West, but now it's blatant.

CosmoNova ,

You‘re right. We should move production to cleaner countries.

nednobbins ,

Production will always have some waste and pollution. China has high pollution because we do a lot of production there. As I pointed out above, on both a per-capita and a per-production basis China pollutes less than many industrialized nations (US. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Taiwan) and many developing nations (Singapore, Malaysia).

Given current manufacturing data, moving production out of China to other countries would likely increase pollution.

angrymouse ,

Actually they are poluting for you to buy your stuff cheaper, who is responsible for the polution of your stuff? Dowa not make any sense to blame them for factories that the west choosed to put there.

geogle ,
@geogle@lemmy.world avatar

They could always say no

dangblingus ,

And why are they one of the most polluting countries?

poke ,

Because they pollute a lot

PatFussy , (edited )

Bad manufacturing practices that exploits a poor labor force. They use this to their advantage to persuade western companies to provide cheap service at the cost of their workforce and sustainability. They then turn around and make these grand plans of Eco friendly targets while their populace regularly burn their trash with little regulation. Then some regulation agency comes in and turns a blind eye to some foul shit as long as they are paid accordingly to play ball.

nednobbins ,

When you look at the data China pollutes less than the US both on a per-capita and a per-production basis.

PatFussy ,

Big dog why are you going back in time 2 months to respond to this

nednobbins ,

Why not? Have the facts changed since then?

PatFussy ,

I don't even know what you are responding toqnd don't care to look

nednobbins ,

So you're just going to spew out words without even checking the context of those words?

Brilliant!

PatFussy ,

Remind me then

nednobbins ,

Remind you of the thing you could literally check by clicking on the "show context" link?

PatFussy ,

Too lazy

SeaJ ,

Only way many western countries were able to slow their rise in CO2 emissions. Despite outsourcing their emissions to China, the US still emits twice the CO2 per capita compared with China.

rottingleaf ,

Lots of that is cattle for meat, BTW, not just energy production.

iAvicenna ,
@iAvicenna@lemmy.world avatar

polluting to meet the online shopping demands of western countries

Rooter ,

87% of China's energy comes from non renewable and they aren't one of the most polluting. They ARE the most polluted country on the planet.

And saying China leads the way is bogus. Per capita for renewable they are one of the worst.

Saying China made the most solar panels is bullshit when they have over a billion people, the USA is actually far ahead of China when it comes to renewable energy.

I expect nothing less from a news site that has been caught multiple times in the past for spouting pseudoscience.

nednobbins , (edited )

A lot of people don't realize how quickly China is changing. Things that were true just a few decades ago are often no longer true.

Once China decided that pollution was a problem they went all in on addressing it. China has massive reforestation projects, huge incentives to switch to EVs, and much tighter energy efficiency standards.

Solar isn't even their only renewable energy source. China gets about equal amounts from solar, wind and hydro https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/013124-coal-still-accounted-for-nearly-60-of-chinas-electricity-supply-in-2023-cec together they make up a little less than half of their total energy production and the ratio keeps improving. correction: those are projected ratios, not current ratios.

Of course, on a per capita basis, China isn't even close to being a top polluter. Unless you think that people in smaller countries deserve to pollute more, per-capita is the better measurement. China looks a little worse if you do that but it's still far from a top polluter by that metric.

Altofaltception ,

There's a reason the US is targeting China from various fronts (trade restrictions, sanctions, etc.). China is a powerhouse and the US is terrified of being left behind.

db0 ,
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

We're watching The Thucydides Trap unfold in real-time

wikibot Bot ,

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

The Thucydides Trap, or Thucydides' Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon. The term exploded in popularity in 2015 and primarily applies to analysis of China–United States relations. Supporting the thesis, Allison led a study at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs which found that, among a sample of 16 historical instances of an emerging power rivaling a ruling power, 12 ended in war.
That study, however, has come under considerable criticism, and scholarly opinion on the value of the Thucydides Trap concept—particularly as it relates to a potential military conflict between the United States and China—remains divided.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^
^article^ ^|^ ^about^

RobotToaster ,
@RobotToaster@mander.xyz avatar

good bot

sir_reginald ,
@sir_reginald@lemmy.world avatar

I don't get why you're getting dowvoted. I guess there are a lot of Americans over here. But your statement is absolutely true. The US attempts at restricting China's access to various technologies only make sense if they feel threatened by them.

where_am_i ,

It just could be, maybe, military posturing.

Because I don't remember any restrictions for as long as China didn't intend to start the WW3.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

china is not the country participating, directly or indirectly, in a handful of pretty destabilizing wars right now.

dunno why they are the ones being accused of wanting to start ww3

brain_in_a_box ,

Yeah, how dare China put their country so close to all those US military bases!

Westerner's accusing China - a country that hasn't been to war in 5 decades - of intending to start WW3 is the most obvious projection in history.

Wanderer ,

China is doing a lot of shady stuff though.

If the US really wanted to resolve it they would do more about patient infringement and spend more money on research.

ChihuahuaOfDoom ,

Bigger country does things bigger, more at 11.

Poutinetown ,

True, now I expect Canada to install more solar panels than China has in total.

k_rol ,

Then next is Russia. I like this common sense concept!

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

then next is the rest of the planet, we need everyone to transition, not just the countries that are relevant in today's power plays.

id argue india is more relevant than russia here since they seem to be the ones starting to industrialize on behalf of the rest of the world now.

nix ,
@nix@merv.news avatar

“The United States occupies a total area of about 3.8 million square miles while China has an area of approximately 3.7million square miles. However, China has a bigger land area than the United States. The Chinese land area is about 2.2% bigger than the United States (3.5 million square miles).“

0ops ,

They were probably referring to population

Assman ,
@Assman@sh.itjust.works avatar

China also consumes twice as much electricity as the US (half as much per capita)

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

they do most of the worlds production, thats expected

frezik ,

About 20% of that US land is in Alaska, which is not a place to put solar panels. Not if you want them to produce for half the year at a stretch, anyway.

conditional_soup ,

Currently seeing the US climate narrative shift from "why should we stop burning fossils and get our shit together when China won't? >:(" to "why should we stop burning fossils and get our shit together when Senegal won't? >:(" Can't wait for 20 years from now when we're balls deep in climate disasters, Senegal gets its shit together, and the US narrative moves to honduras El Salvador Uganda comparing itself to the Philippines.

Holy crap you guys, it turns out that the narrative that the developing world is going to burn an ass-ton of fossil fuels is a lot weaker than I thought. It looks like there's a fuckton of equatorial and global south countries with renewables/hydro power, Honduras is even adding Geothermal. God damn it, USA, get off your ass and fix your shit already.

ryathal ,

China needs a fuckload of power, they are building more of everything including coal. The only reason they aren't building more coal is people like seeing out their windows.

The US is actually winding down coal use. China is still expanding, this is a problem. The fact China also added a ton of solar panels is a nice distraction.

conditional_soup ,

I seem to have been working on old info, as China has decommissioned 70 GW of coal plants, but it looks like they also just approved a whole lot more of them.

From Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/chinas-coal-country-full-steam-ahead-with-new-power-plants-despite-climate-2023-11-30/#:~:text=After%202025%2C%20it%20is%20unclear,and%20are%20phasing%20out%20plants.

In the third quarter of this year, however, China permitted more new coal plants than in all of 2021, according to Greenpeace, even as most countries have stopped building new coal-fired power and are phasing out plants.

Well, shit.

Anyway, I'm glad for the solar and nuclear capacity (LOTS of it!) that China's been building. I'm glad to hear that we are spinning down coal capacity, but I'd be interested to learn what we're replacing it with. It seems like natural gas is all the rage these days, and that still produces GHG emissions.

Dudewitbow ,

the coal is approved because on how power plants function. dirty energy is usually used to level out power spikes in demand, but not as a main source after you have a remeweable source. its a tually very hard to go 100% renewables.

ryathal ,

It's less about balance and more about raw needs. Providing power to a billion people is hard and they are building everything to meet the growing demand.

rottingleaf ,

I thought China's population has stopped growing and is actually on a track to start shrinking rapidly?

redcalcium ,

But at the same time, quality of life is rapidly improving which means energy usage per capita will eventually ramp up to similar level with average western citizen's energy usage.

rottingleaf ,

That depends on whether it'll keep its position as world's cheap factory. Quality of life improving tends to affect that too. What energy China now consumes for production may not be required in 20 years.

ryathal ,

China already is losing cheap factories to India and other neighboring countries.

banneryear1868 ,

Balance is what determines the supply mix else everyone would just run nukes. Previous commenter is right about why fossil fuels are still used, we don't have tech to replace their capabilities, which are necessary for reliability of the transmission grid. Energy storage is an area of huge investment right now because of this, with batteries and flywheel storage pilot projects to try and mature this technology. SMRs are another area of research. Programs like demand response to incentivize heavy consumers to change their usage patterns.

Without the ramp rate of fossils to respond quickly to grid conditions, there would be constant frequency drops and spikes across the transmission grid. Turbines would become out of sync from the frequency on the lines and things would start tripping and we would have a blackout. This is even more complex with unpredictable renewal integration where fossil becomes even more critical for its capabilities, while slightly less for its capacity.

MisterFrog ,
@MisterFrog@lemmy.world avatar

It's why I'm a bit disgruntled many places around the world aren't getting their arses in gear and developing and building storage.

Even if that storage is woefully inefficient (liquid air energy storage, for example) it would be hugely beneficial. In Queensland, Australia, for example, barely any new solar is being built because energy prices are negative in the middle of the day and plants are being curtailed.

We need storage, any storage, a butt-tonne more of it, like now.

redcalcium ,

I'm not so sure about that. China is about to ramp up solar even more. They build a lot of solar and battery-related factories and secured mining rights for solar and battery raw elements in Asia and Africa in the past few years, sometimes to the point of fighting with the displaced locals (China tend to bring their own workers from mainland instead of employing local workers).

redcalcium ,

Same with EVs. After BYD became the largest EV manufacturer, suddenly EV is not cool anymore. Maybe if car manufacturers focus on making EV affordable instead of cramming more and more luxury features, maybe EV sales in US won't dwindle.

TheIllustrativeMan ,

The anti-EV sentiment has been building much longer than BYD becoming the big boy on the block. About 8 months ago my state passed the equivalent of about a $100 per gallon tax on EV charging.

emergencyfood ,

That sounds bad, but how would they know you are using electricity to charge your EV?

TheIllustrativeMan ,

It's a DC charger tax.

JJROKCZ ,

Mine requires you to pay an extra like thousand dollars when buying your plates as an EV tax, they try to justify by saying they’re missing out on your fuel taxes for the next decade so they want to collect it up front.

Then they go and spend it on hunting down women getting abortions and black kids existing..

rusticus ,

We've moved from 17% to 40% of total energy production coming from renewables since 2020. Thanks to Biden policies. Even though according to reddit he's an incontinent dementia patient.

pedalmore ,

Source? I haven't seen final numbers for 2023 from EIA yet, but 2022 was like 22%. The growth is accelerating as economics change, and in large part the IRA (thanks Biden), but it's not 40%. I'm speaking of electricity production, but I can't think of a reasonable metric that's anywhere near 40% nationally. Let's try to stick to reality here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

rusticus , (edited )

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/05/us-got-a-record-breaking-40-of-its-energy-from-carbon-free-sources-in-2022-report-reveals

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/us-electricity-energy-carbon-renewables/

Reality enough for you lol?

pedalmore ,

You said renewables are 40%, which is wrong. Then you sourced articles showing that carbon free sources are 40%, which includes nuclear. Nobody calls nuclear "renewable", so I suggest getting your language straight so as not to confuse.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

to be fair nuclear nuclear is much much better than keeping up with all that fossil fuel burning.

in fact id rather see (properly maintained!!!) nuclear than waiting until actual renewables can cover all of the world's demand.

rusticus ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

You are a total douche, btw.

pedalmore ,

We’ve moved from 17% to 40% of total energy production coming from renewables since 2020

This what you said. You're comparing a 2020 number without nuclear to a 2022 number with nuclear. That's dumb and misleading. That doesn't make me a douche, it makes you wrong and petty. Grow up and just try to get your numbers and facts straight.

SendMePhotos ,

I mean... It can all be true, right?

rusticus ,

Listen to Biden's interview on Conan O'Brien's podcast then come back here and tell me he's demented. I'll wait.

AA5B ,

I also had sweet dreams last night

nednobbins ,

The US DOE puts the US at 20% renewable energy.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy

rusticus ,

Pretty easy to argue nuclear is renewable and is carbon neutral. Ergo, 40%.

nednobbins ,

Except when you leave out nuclear in 2020 and add it in 2023 you're not pointing out anything about Biden (or anyone else's) policies. You're just demonstrating that shifting your metrics mid sentence leads to a nonsense conclusion.

rottingleaf ,

Renewables may be more plausible for some developing countries because of lack of competency or administrative consistency (sometimes to the degree of stealing everything which isn't nailed to the floor) for centralized grid with a few big producers, and weak infrastructure in general.

But of course it would be good if some things weren't stagnating in countries without such factors.

Darkhoof ,
@Darkhoof@lemmy.world avatar

It's more because developing countries don't attract the interest of corporations so much that they won't devote much energy to sabotage the installation of renewable energy.

rottingleaf ,

Maybe, but it's rather that this lack of interest allows local establishment to take the niche and the power in their countries associated with it. So they use the opportunity gladly.

fruitycoder ,

It's also easier to justify adopting newer tech in places that are less developed. If you made a billion dollar investment and are still paying for it, it's harder to scrap it and pivot.

RobotToaster ,
@RobotToaster@mander.xyz avatar

BuT At wHaT CoSt

LaLuzDelSol ,

The enslavement of the Uighur people? I work for an American renewable energy company and a lot of contracts were disrupted by the US' Forced Labor Prevention Act. I suspect that the sudden jump in domestic Chinese installation is partially caused by Chinese exports being restricted by western nations.

jeena ,
@jeena@jemmy.jeena.net avatar

Those are installed, but are they connected to the grid?

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

would it make any sense to spend precious time and resources to produce millions of solar panels to then just not bother to plug them in?

jeena ,
@jeena@jemmy.jeena.net avatar

Totally, you can get all the money from the government for it so you make the profit. Just look at the rent a bike industry in China or the EV industry

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

doesnt matter if its the government making that investment or private interests.

why invest and waste time and resources to make and install solar panels and not bothering to plug them in? thats a really bad take.

jeena ,
@jeena@jemmy.jeena.net avatar

I just showed you that there are doin this in the other two industries, it's not such a big leap to suspect that they are doing it in a third industry too.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

their EVs and ebikes are booming worldwide dude. BYD is quite huge now.

it still doesnt make sense to pay for solar panels and not install them.

jeena ,
@jeena@jemmy.jeena.net avatar

Ok, I give up explaining what I mean, it doesn't matter.

Sanctus ,
@Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

Its because China isn't beholden to a bunch of invisible suits demanding money over all else. Apparently the US can't break from Citizens United, and tell this corpos whats what to literally save its own skin.

PatFussy , (edited )

Lol XDDDDD

Thinking China isn't beholden to an invisible elite is the laugh I needed today

How did their presidential election go again?

  • 2952 votes for

  • 0 votes against

  • 0 votes abstain

kurwa ,

China is from from perfect, missing tons of freedoms like speech. However do you think they have the same issues as the US regarding wealth hoarding? They have put billionaires in jail.

Sanctus ,
@Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

Pooh with an iron mit is not the same as the invisible kings of the countless corporations donating their free speech to our government. They are beholden to Whinnie, and he is out in the open. Yes, there are still a lot of economical politics over there. Yes, there is still capitalistic pressures and businesses are allowed to operate. Do they define money as free speech over there? Did they capture bribery and bind it to the law? I don't know, but I do know that is true for the US, and it is the reason you won't see enough renewables being built. Its the reason we will drag our feet to our graves, because it makes some dudes richer than god.

redcalcium ,

Whelp, in this case, China's elite is not invisible. Their citizen know exactly who's the elite controlling the economy.

brain_in_a_box ,

How did their presidential election go again?

Do you even know how elections work in China? not every country is the USA! Leadership is determined by which party has the most seats in congress (much like Britain, Australia, Canada, and other such places.) In the last election, the CPC got about two thirds.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

what? they dont even have direct presidential elections for the federal executive.

Rolder ,

Laughs in CCP

iAvicenna ,
@iAvicenna@lemmy.world avatar

china also has more population than any other country

lazynooblet ,
@lazynooblet@lazysoci.al avatar

There may be differing opinions on government and ethics, but one thing China does well is push their workforce towards common goals like this.

hark , (edited )
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

US total wealth: 139+ trillion (in USD)

China total wealth: 84+ trillion (in USD)

It's not a function of population. It's a function of wealth and the will to use that wealth to invest in clean energy. The US has entrenched interests in keeping the oil flowing. China isn't investing in clean energy for altruism, they do it because they don't have rich reserves of oil, but at least they're doing the right thing, even if it's not necessarily for the right reasons.

iAvicenna ,
@iAvicenna@lemmy.world avatar

Agreed that wealth also is a relevant parameter. But it is also a function of the population because what fraction of your population's power consumption is coming from a renewable source is a more interesting metric than your raw renewable power production.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

global production is all outsourced to india and mainly china.

their carbon emissions correspond not only to their own population, but to produce goods for most of the world.

iAvicenna ,
@iAvicenna@lemmy.world avatar

yes and hence why it is currently only reasonable to compare things like total renewable energy production vs total household energy requirements of a country. production energy is too global to tackle with this approach. and so why I just casually mentioned population is an important factor in how much renewable energy you should be producing.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

yes, thats true, but the original point is that china has to invest heavily in energy solely because of its population, and thats not true when most of that consumption comes from globalized industry working there. that was my point.

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net avatar

Good for them

Rolder ,

US Population: 332 Million

China Population: 1.4 Billion

simonced ,

But they still have their crazy mines that polute right? No number of solar pannel will change anything if you don't stop what you are doing that polutes.
Same for all countries btw...

banneryear1868 ,

China pollutes so much because the biggest consumer economy in the world deindustrialized and outsourced manufacturing to them.

52fighters , (edited )

China pollutes so much because George HW Bush and Bill Clinton pushed American jobs to China so CEOs could make bank on huge profits on cheap labor, unsafe work places, and near zero environmental regulation that was impossible in the United States. We built China by disregarding worker rights and the environment and we are paying for it dearly.

Corkyskog ,

Why are we even bothering blaming politicians? Companies moved production over to cut costs and Americans wanted cheap shit. We could have all just bought made in America in the 80s if we cared, that would have been the time to make a stand while the transition was still happening.

52fighters ,

It is government's job to make sure international trade is done according to some basic rules, including labor and environment. Business' only metric is profits.

fruitycoder ,

The idea that businesses are only responsible to make profits is a newer one (can't say new it's been decades) and one that is trending away imho

bitwaba ,

You mean the boomers consumers are to blame?

Whelks_chance ,

You've never bought anything with "made in china" on the label?

bitwaba ,

Of course I have. Those were the best pencils for poppin' in elementary school.

banneryear1868 , (edited )

I'd say the 70s was the pivotal decade there with the oil crisis, the party was effectively over for the Democratic FDR post-war reality, and the economic anxieties resulting from deindustrialization began to have impacts in the rust belt. Mao's death effectively ended China's Cultural Revolution, and Deng implemented economic reforms to open the country to capitalism, with a huge industrial push and creation of economic zones. While labor power in the US had achieved a great deal in to the 60s, the Taft-Hartley Act from back in '47 kneecapped the ability for labor to fight the death of the US industrial manufacturing core. Because of course capital is gonna capital, and if they can't exploit workers as well domestically they can in some other country. Especially when they use their hegemonic influence to keep other countries open to private capitalist exploitation, like arming fascist coups in even moderately socialist countries in the global south. The global fight against communism is a backdrop to all this.

And here we are today as these routes of externalizing the exploitation necessary to maintain this standard of living and consumer economy dry up, and this economic reality turns inward.

RaoulDook ,

So did the US Presidents force China to not implement any environmental safeguards for their manufacturing? I don't think so.

Sure the corporations send the orders to China, and they pay for them, putting the money into China's economy. But China as a sovereign nation is still responsible for the pollution that it creates. They should implement strong environmental protection regulations to fix that.

I would prefer if American corporations sent their manufacturing orders to American factories, but I have no control over that or China's environmental regulations. They should both do better.

Darkhoof ,
@Darkhoof@lemmy.world avatar

China is installing more energy production than any other country. Wind, solar, coal and nuclear. They are installing everything.

JustMy2c ,

Can't wage war if you depend on oil ships

Darkhoof ,
@Darkhoof@lemmy.world avatar

Don't have to wage war if you don't depend on oil.

occhionaut ,

This was done with the express purpose of having the title of it. Its a vanity project that wont last 10 years.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

renewables are not vanity regardless of country

ryathal ,

China regularly does vanity projects to get positive headlines. Mass tree planting has been a popular one, the trees are generally all dead in a year or two, but they got the pro environment headline.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

yes, most replanted trees die regardless. forest coverage is up and thats what matters.

Fades ,

You can thank conservatives for that. They are beholden to fossil fuel interests so they attack everything else whether it be solar energy or ev

Tristaniopsis , (edited )

“JESUS WOULDN’TVE INSTALLED SOLAR PANELS!!11!1!1”

Ainiriand ,

hahahaha this is why I pay my internets

kawa ,
@kawa@reddeet.com avatar

And opened more coal plants too lol, don't be quick in praising the CCP, there's always something shady in the background...

Olhonestjim ,

And systematically genociding their minorities too. Let's never forget that.

brain_in_a_box ,

Anyone still repeating the Uighur genocide conspiracy theory in this day and age - long after the western media has backed away from it, independent bodies have found no evidence, Isreal demonstrating that you can’t ‘secretly’ genocide a population without evidence getting out, and all the original proponents of the conspiracy now one hundred percent on board for the genocide of Palestinians - is either knowingly lying or terminally propagandized.

gnygnygny ,

This is not just a theory. There are evidences. Until you relay CCP propaganda.

brain_in_a_box ,

Better half of a decade and not a single piece of physical or documentary evidence has been found, the death count remains at 0, Xinjiang remains completely open to visitation, no refugee wave has occurred despite a massive, non-militarized border, the UN and every Muslim (or just not Western aligned) country has rejected it, and it's only primary proponents remain wingnut Western partisans who are currently enthusiastically supporting the actual genocide of Muslims in Palestine.

There's a reason that the only thing people still sprooking this conspiracy theory can do is desperately scream "CCP PROPAGANDA!" at anyone who disagrees with them. It's just this generations "IRAQ HAS WMDS!"

FlorianSimon ,

Go back to nazbear, revisionist tankie. There is proof available with a simple Google search.

And I can fault China for their actions just like I can blame the US for sponsoring the massacre in Gaza, which I vehemently reject. So your whack theory falls flat.

Most people except China know the truth about what happened in Xinjiang.

RaoulDook ,

Bullshit, I've already seen pictures and videos of it, a few years ago. Lots of us have too.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

are there?

is there credible evidence beyond pictures of random prisioners?

FlorianSimon ,

Yes, tankie. A simple Google Search will answer your dishonest question.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

all i see is articles from corporate us/uk media making extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof. nothing being said in my native tongue about it that isnt direct reference to the aforementioned outlets.

tell me, fascist, where is all that proof?

frezik ,

Tell you what. I'll deny there is any genocide in Gaza on the exact same basis that you're denying it for the Uyghurs. Does that work for you? If it really has to be "extraordinary", then it has to be applied equally.

Or is this not something like, say, UFOs or homeopathy where we actually need extraordinary evidence?

FlorianSimon , (edited )

There is evidence of significant mistreatment of Uyghurs in China. The poster is a deliberate liar covering the interest of the government of China. This is a matter for moderators, they're not talking in good faith.

frezik ,

I know. I specifically want to target this phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", because I've noticed it being increasingly abused to ignore evidence.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

'significant mistreatment' is a big step down from genocide, even then I would love to see the evidence for it and adjust my view of the situation.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

Not the same basis at all. You can't deny there is genocide in Gaza because there is extensive photographic and video evidence, aid openly going from the US to Israel, plenty of refugees seeking asylum in neighbouring countries, palestine voices talking about it and so on. Israel themselves seem pretty nonchalant about it. Similar but not equal evidence arose in Armenia, apartheid South Africa, nazi Germany and so on.

There are pictures of unidentified prisioners and some corporate media used to make pretty extraordinary (as in out of the ordinary) claims about them. No we don't need as much proof as UFOs, its not even on the same ballpark.

So I can repeat my reasoning with more context: Where is all that evidence of Muslims being genocided by the droves over there?

frezik ,

Nah, all I see are pictures from Russian outlets.

See how easy that was to pretend there is no evidence?

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

what do you even mean, should i even try to argue with this in good faith?

you can literally find publications from all around the world doing original hands-on journalism about it on the first few pages of google.

im literally asking for all that evidence on every post now. all i can find is, yet again, pictures of random unidentifiable prisioners with wild conspiracies about them being part of a secret genocide.

frezik ,

should i even try to argue with this in good faith?

No, you should go back to the cesspool of thoughtless praxis that is .ml.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

hahaahahahha k

FlorianSimon ,

Do not feed the troll. They're fighting for mindspace. Just answering the top-level comments denies them the right to exist without direct contradiction.

We know they're lying, and everyone really willing to challenge the idea will find enough on the Internet to find the right anwser. Now's the right time for you to disengage. No need to give a platform to those disgusting nazis.

Mission accomplished. More tankies banned.

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

they are from .ML, a major tankie instance, with major love for Pooty/Russia and Pooh Bear/China and irrational hatred for anything Not Russia/China. Soooo.. Yeah.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

preceding the points you mentioned, i stopped believing it when the league of arab nations went to investigate and found nothing.

brain_in_a_box ,

Yeah, it was very telling that the Westerners making the genocide accusations responded to that by basically saying "You can't trust them! Everyone knows Muslims are corrupt and dishonest!"

FlorianSimon ,

Go back to nazbear, revisionist tankie. There is proof available with a simple Google search.

And I can fault China for their actions just like I can blame the US for sponsoring the massacre in Gaza, which I vehemently reject. So your whack theory falls flat.

Most people except China know the truth about what happened in Xinjiang.

astral_avocado ,

tankie army has been activated

FlorianSimon ,

Tankie army got nuked into oblivion... Thank goodness.

Thirdborne ,

I still can't wrap my head around the case for genocide in China. Political and religious oppression is evident, but aside from grainy photos of some prisoners, but I haven't seen evidence of genocide. People are saying it though so... I guess it could be true?

Wizard_Pope ,
@Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world avatar

It's not really shady now is it? There is no way solar can provide enough power for the entire country of china.

brain_in_a_box ,

Remember, to people like that "existing while Chinese" is shady in and of itself.

frezik ,

China's CO2 output is expected to fall in the coming year, and for structural reasons, stay that way for years to come.

https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

frippa ,
@frippa@lemmy.ml avatar

China is doing something good: here's why it's bad.

endhits ,

China is still developing and allowing European countries and the US to pollute unchecked but clutch your pearls when China and other countries do the same is ideological.

This article is evidence that China is putting effort forward on renewables. Meanwhile, Germany is opening coal plants and the US can't get a handle on anything at all.

Blackmist ,

Good. I assume it helps that most of the world's solar panel manufacturing is based in China.

The rest of the world should be ramping up production, not relying on China for cheap labour.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

its obviously good for the rest of the world to industrialize, but they would just be moving carbon emissions from china to themselves.

they themselves would need to transition to renewables if we want this move to be good for the climate.

gnygnygny ,

Think about Uyghurs.

brain_in_a_box ,

Anyone still repeating the Uighur genocide conspiracy theory in this day and age - long after the western media has backed away from it, independent bodies have found no evidence, Isreal demonstrating that you can’t ‘secretly’ genocide a population without evidence getting out, and all the original proponents of the conspiracy now one hundred percent on board for the genocide of Palestinians - is either knowingly lying or terminally propagandized.

dezmd ,
@dezmd@lemmy.world avatar

The irony of your propaganda account posting about propaganda is full flavored.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

well arab countries have visited them and found no problem and mass refugee movements arent happening. i think they should be fine.

what did i say that was remotely related to them on my post?

vaultdweller013 ,
@vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works avatar

I trust the Arab countrys as far as I could throw them. Get the Irish in there and I may take such claims seriously.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

the conspiracy is that the arabs are complicit with their own secret genocide then? what do the irish have to do with an arab genocide? 🤣

vaultdweller013 ,
@vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works avatar

What do Arabs have to do a Turkic genocide? You are conflating Muslim and Arab.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

by all means, get the irish to show us whats happening there then.

Blackmist ,

That would be the point of making panels and wind turbines themselves.

Ideally you'd want enough manufacturing capacity to power your whole country with renewables, in the time it takes for the first bits to start needing replacements.

fruitycoder ,

I keep seeing more and more about the solar production in Georgia, USA ramping up!

It great to see the world really going into green industrialzation.

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

Cool part is we've got a functional safety system like OSHA so everyone goes home with all their fingers and toes, and the EPA keeps the nearby creeks from getting contaminated.

Can't say the same for other countries, troubled and fucked up as our country is.

PanArab ,

Other countries are Asiatic hordes, nothing but lawlessness and savagery. Only America make clean safe technology! 😜

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites 🤨

RubberElectrons ,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

You know how when you're the first to do something, you're also the first to make mistakes? Look at the Hanford site, for example. First place to ever process uranium and plutonium.

Imagine knowing the results of being careless, and being careless anyway, after the fact. 😂 What's wrong with you??

To be clear: I believe most people anywhere want to be safe, and do a good job. Their administrators and governmental reps are the pieces of dogshit, ccp included, that ignore safety and individuality. The US has serious problems too, but again, we have safety organizations with teeth here.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •