Per-capita CO2 emissions* is the only way to think about different countries' performance on climate change, and it boggles my mind that people expect China's energy footprint to somehow not...
Per-capita CO2 emissions* is the only way to think about different countries' performance on climate change, and it boggles my mind that people expect China's energy footprint to somehow not expand with time while many developed countries are willing to do little to compromise or reorganize their lifestyle.
Why would other countries be responsible for China's output? Yes, people buy things from China, but China is the one who has direct control over the energy and manufacturing infrastructure. If the...
Why would other countries be responsible for China's output? Yes, people buy things from China, but China is the one who has direct control over the energy and manufacturing infrastructure.
If the survival of the species depends on China reducing their coal plants and fossil fuel use, why would someone in Iowa be expected to fix that by buying less from China? If the dude in Iowa needs to consume less, stop selling to him.
I know the impulse is to put the blame at the doorstep of the West and the US for more or less everything, but China is responsible for its own emissions, the world can't afford to give anyone a pass on their emissions or carry them financially while they try to speed run the last leg of an industrial revolution. China is a big boy now, they need to take some responsibility too.
You're not inherently responsible, but you must realize, that they're not going to actually reduce emissions without the incentives - it's not rational for them to do so. I think it's hard for...
Exemplary
You're not inherently responsible, but you must realize, that they're not going to actually reduce emissions without the incentives - it's not rational for them to do so. I think it's hard for people in developed nations to understand that in developing nations, every kilogram of emissions is doing quite a lot - it's lifting people out of poverty, and becoming the sustenance that allows them to live. It's a very different situation than in developed countries, where it's often framed as luxuries. "Would I rather contribute to a 2 degree warming of the Earth or have my grandmother starve" is a much more difficult choice - humans are all locally selfish.
The developed world had their time of high emissions, when London's smog was so infamous there were songs written about it. Now they can reap the rewards, but if the developed world wants the developing world to materially harm itself for climate goals, then they can either share that wealth to bypass the high emissions stage, or deal with the reality that they're going to contribute to global emissions while developing.
Those are the only two choices. China is at the tail end of development, but the majority of the world is still undeveloped. If you want to take "countries are responsible for themselves!" route, then well, it is what it is, but I suppose the Earth will be getting a fair bit warmer in the future.
China is running hundreds of massive Uyghur prison camps, there are a lot of areas they can do better to reduce their emissions. The idea that everything they're doing is strictly necessary to...
China is running hundreds of massive Uyghur prison camps, there are a lot of areas they can do better to reduce their emissions. The idea that everything they're doing is strictly necessary to prevent collapse back into third-world status is hard to believe. Xi Xinping has ambitions to unseat western hegemony, an ambition which goes far beyond what's necessary to have a prosperous, sustainable society.
To be clear, what are your expectations from the west to solve China's emission problem? And how do you see it effecting China differently than them scaling back unecessary sectors on their own?
From an actual policy perspective I don’t think the west needs to do anything because China is switching to renewables at a pace about as fast as you can expect. I don’t have an issue with the...
From an actual policy perspective I don’t think the west needs to do anything because China is switching to renewables at a pace about as fast as you can expect. I don’t have an issue with the pace.
If the west wanted China to go green faster, then yes, monetary contributions to build infrastructure or non-monetary contributions like sharing R&D or lowering tariffs for renewables is the only actual decision.
Beyond China, which like I said is nearing the tail end of development anyway, there’s the whole of the global south left to develop. Fundamentally the calculus for these countries is different than ours: global warming sucks, but so does living in poverty, and so does living as an economic minion of great powers. They’ll choose a world with 2 degrees of warming and wealth. On the other hand, incremental development does far less for the developed world, and climate change does a lot worse. Using money to bridge the gap, to make renewables the right economic choice, is the only lever.
If you just say, “well, if you keep on, we’ll end up with 2-3 degrees or worse of warming”, many countries will rightfully say, “we’ll meet you there, then”.
I remain unconvinced that world should need to subsidize the second largest economy on the planet, or that there's nothing China can do itself to change its unsustainable trajectory. They have...
I remain unconvinced that world should need to subsidize the second largest economy on the planet, or that there's nothing China can do itself to change its unsustainable trajectory. They have been approving hundreds of new coal plants yearly, which makes any renewables far less effective. And as I pointed out, there are many non-critical sectors of their state that could be scaled back without people starving (and in fact might produce some good).
Fundamentally the calculus for these countries is different than ours: global warming sucks, but so does living in poverty, and so does living as an economic minion of great powers.
In what sense is China a "minion" of the west? You talk of the country as if it's some backwater nation. Their lack of trustworthiness and complete rejection of geopolitical norms has isolated them and given them less political clout than they wish they had, but China is not entitled to be the "top dog", they are not entitled to empire. They need to relinquish that goal and focus on domestic policy, scale back things like their mass detainment facilities and surveillance infrastructure etc. The west cannot do that for them, and giving them resources in no way guarantees that they would use those towards any kind of climate agenda.
Their calculus may be different, but the climate doesn't care. They're emitting a third of the world's emissions, that's a hard fact.
Beyond China, which like I said is nearing the tail end of development anyway, there’s the whole of the global south left to develop.
Yes, which is why it's even more critical for China to stop faking a limp and setting climate goals that are conveniently far enough out for them to try to complete their campaign for global dominance, rather than setting them around what the science dictates is necessary. The world should be aiding actual third world nations, not China.
I don't think we should subsidize China, because I think their trajectory is fine. Their per capita emissions, while growing, are still quite far from the US, and the second derivative of their...
I don't think we should subsidize China, because I think their trajectory is fine. Their per capita emissions, while growing, are still quite far from the US, and the second derivative of their emissions over time is negative, and certainly has gone negative far faster than the US did. But if you did think China is not cutting emissions fast enough, then yes, you should subsidize them.
You can say, "China should do X", "China should do Y" all you want, but in the end Xi is not quaking in his boots under threat of your disappointment. They don't care - they will do what they think is in their self interest, as all sovereign nations do, in the end. You can either make it so that what's best for their self interest is clean energy, or you can let them emit.
There are no other choices. No amount of saying the word "should" actually causes changes.
It's not about my disappointment, it's about the hard reality of climate change. Xi places his imperial ambitions above that, and as you say, there's nothing we can do as outsiders, it's the...
Xi is not quaking in his boots under threat of your disappointment. They don't care
It's not about my disappointment, it's about the hard reality of climate change. Xi places his imperial ambitions above that, and as you say, there's nothing we can do as outsiders, it's the choices of the CCP that determine what happens in their borders.
The climate does not care about per capita emissions. I disagree strongly that China is anywhere close to on track. I think you've sort of side stepped most of the relevant points I'm making so I think this discussion is about at an end. I think the conclusion is; humanity is fucked due to greed, hyper-authoritarianism and self-interest.
As all others, I would say. Compare per capita emissions of China and some developed couintries and ask yourself who really is the one that should lower its emissions.
Xi places his imperial ambitions above that,
As all others, I would say. Compare per capita emissions of China and some developed couintries and ask yourself who really is the one that should lower its emissions.
And as I've said repeatedly, the climate does not care who is putting out more emissions and whether it's per capita or if they had some giant co2 burn pit. I cannot understand why this point is...
And as I've said repeatedly, the climate does not care who is putting out more emissions and whether it's per capita or if they had some giant co2 burn pit.
I cannot understand why this point is repeatedly being ignored. Arguments about per capita simply do not matter, it all goes into the atmosphere.
"We're all in this together" means a lot more when everyone is on roughly the same footing and is sacrificing roughly the same to get there. Carbon footprint per capita is a much more reasonable...
"We're all in this together" means a lot more when everyone is on roughly the same footing and is sacrificing roughly the same to get there. Carbon footprint per capita is a much more reasonable and humane metric.
The USA is a fat person eating three meals a day. Europe is a average person eating two meals a day. China is five scrawny people eating one meal a day. US and Europe are telling China that we all need to do our part and stop eating one meal a day, because China eats the most meals.
And when the food runs out as all finite resources do then no one eats. It's unreasonable for anyone to state they cannot reduce usage based on Capitalism's demand for infinite growth. Only one...
And when the food runs out as all finite resources do then no one eats. It's unreasonable for anyone to state they cannot reduce usage based on Capitalism's demand for infinite growth. Only one input matters-- the limitations of the physical world.
This is not a China vs United States issue. It's one of the lack of any critical thinking on this matter and the fantasy thinking that human systems have any precedence at all.
China has a billion people in it, that’s about 1/7 of the entire world population. And many of them are still quite poor. Imperial ambitions aside, the need to develop economically is a...
I remain unconvinced that world should need to subsidize the second largest economy on the planet
China has a billion people in it, that’s about 1/7 of the entire world population. And many of them are still quite poor. Imperial ambitions aside, the need to develop economically is a humanitarian imperative for them. You ask about subsidizing the second largest economy in the world, but they’d ask about expecting a country of people with an average output of $12k a year to subsidize countries with GDPs per capita that are double or triple that. And even that largely based on the compounded returns to wealth looted out of China, India, and Africa.
It's a sungle example, but there are close to a million detainees across hundreds of facilities. It's a perfect example of an area where a reduction could help without any kind of economic detriment.
It's a sungle example, but there are close to a million detainees across hundreds of facilities. It's a perfect example of an area where a reduction could help without any kind of economic detriment.
The CCP is extremely dependent on delivering economic prosperity - that's basically what keeps them in power despite their despotism. They literally can't sacrifice economic gains to tackle...
The CCP is extremely dependent on delivering economic prosperity - that's basically what keeps them in power despite their despotism. They literally can't sacrifice economic gains to tackle climate change.
That said, China imports a ton of oil which could easily be blockaded by the US, so they have a major geopolitical incentive to wean themselves off oil/LNG.
Because the country of purchase is the one that should bear the responsibility of the good. If the USA outsources all automobile manufacturing, but then purchases 80% of all automobiles, then they...
Because the country of purchase is the one that should bear the responsibility of the good.
If the USA outsources all automobile manufacturing, but then purchases 80% of all automobiles, then they are 80% culpable for the impact of that manufacturing.
The country that extracts the oil should have as much responsibility as the buyer.
If you look per-capita, China has less emissions than either the USA, most of Europe, and Australia. By that metric, they're outperforming the West and maybe we should be looking to them for...
If you look per-capita, China has less emissions than either the USA, most of Europe, and Australia.
By that metric, they're outperforming the West and maybe we should be looking to them for example.
(yes I'm being snarky. China has 17% of the world's population. Its reasonable for them to have the most emissions in the world.)
Why not? The UK and China have the same CO2 emissions per capita (even after adjusted for trade), but the UK's emissions are falling and China's are rising, even while quality of living is higher...
Why not? The UK and China have the same CO2 emissions per capita (even after adjusted for trade), but the UK's emissions are falling and China's are rising, even while quality of living is higher in the UK.
That's fair. I think carbon tariffs are going to be essential to reducing China's CO2 emissions. 3/4ths of their emissions come from coal, so a solution would need to price that cost in to make...
That's fair. I think carbon tariffs are going to be essential to reducing China's CO2 emissions. 3/4ths of their emissions come from coal, so a solution would need to price that cost in to make the marginally higher cost for natural gas/renewables in production justifiable.
So it sounds like their take is that it isn't possible to take fossil files to zero, but to offset fossils by carbon capture? I don't think I'm against that. I think agreeing to do something and...
So it sounds like their take is that it isn't possible to take fossil files to zero, but to offset fossils by carbon capture?
I don't think I'm against that. I think agreeing to do something and try to Lower is a whole lot better than arguing about whether or not it's impossible or not .
It sounds like China agrees about the importance of climate, whereas the title of this article is actually very combative.
The thing about carbon capture is that the scale of it would need to be mind-boggling to even make a dent. Granted, if any country is set up for scale it's China, but it's difficult to not be...
The thing about carbon capture is that the scale of it would need to be mind-boggling to even make a dent. Granted, if any country is set up for scale it's China, but it's difficult to not be dubious until it's been achieved.
The issue is that this tech doesn't even exist yet, It's a pipe dream. We need to be pushing to reduce fossil fuel reliance because that tech doesn't exist. When the tech comes along? It'll be...
The issue is that this tech doesn't even exist yet, It's a pipe dream.
We need to be pushing to reduce fossil fuel reliance because that tech doesn't exist.
When the tech comes along? It'll be great to scrub the atmosphere of the carbon dioxide already in it and get us back down to a sensible level. Until then, sitting there having these conversations is like me sitting there "Man I really do prefer warp engines for travelling FTL"
Exactly! I get so mad when politicians talk about "inventing" our way out of the climate crisis - because it's not just China saying this. Several countries are recently saying that they aren't...
The issue is that this tech doesn't even exist yet, It's a pipe dream.
Exactly! I get so mad when politicians talk about "inventing" our way out of the climate crisis - because it's not just China saying this. Several countries are recently saying that they aren't going to live up to the Paris goals, including mine, Denmark. Instead we have politicians from the major parties just being like "uhm we'll fix it eventually, trust me bro!"
The problems with "we'll find a technological solution" are as follows: Countries that say this aren't willing to pour trillions of dollars into making this happen themselves, what they'll instead...
The problems with "we'll find a technological solution" are as follows:
Countries that say this aren't willing to pour trillions of dollars into making this happen themselves, what they'll instead do is wait for someone else to solve it. With a few minor grants, possibly.
We already have a technological solution (multiple, in fact - nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal, renewables+batteries), but nobody has implemented it because it's too expensive.
Replacing the oil/gas industry is a moving target, because fossil fuel companies have been pouring their profits into R&D to improve the efficiency and lower the costs of their industry. It's not enough to just make something that's cheaper than 1980s gas plants; you need something that's cheaper than 2020s gas plants.
So "a technological solution" usually means "let's hope that someone magically replaces the entire energy industry on a shoestring budget".
I don't agree that anything is better than literally nothing. If you're doing something, but it's fundamentally ineffective, that something takes up time and energy that could be going into...
I don't agree that anything is better than literally nothing. If you're doing something, but it's fundamentally ineffective, that something takes up time and energy that could be going into something that would actually work to solve the issue.
If someone is still doing nothing, there's space for something new in a way that doesn't exist if they're already doing something they say will solve it.
I don't know about this. If someone is doing nothing, there space for something new in a way thay doesn't exist? I don't think that actually happens. Because every time someone tries to suggest...
I don't know about this. If someone is doing nothing, there space for something new in a way thay doesn't exist? I don't think that actually happens.
Because every time someone tries to suggest something new, someone else jumps in and says exactly what was said above, that it's a pipe dream, or it's not ready, or it's too uncertain, or it's a distraction.
You can't expect anyone to be able to offer any new ideas if you have the attitude that some ideas are "fundamentally ineffective" because everything is fundamentally ineffective until you actually commit to it. Nothing works at scale when you do it in the lab the first time.
Renewables were fundamentally too expensive until the US and Germany and China all decided to make a big push to make them less expensive. And it worked.
But it was "unfeasible" at the time, even though it obviously wasn't really. It's just a thing people say when they really mean they'd just prefer to do something else.
Maybe they don't even know what they want to be done yet but they just really don't want to do ______ for some reason, so they claim it's impossible and no one else should even spend time trying to think about it.
And I just think that's boring. It's boring to suppress all the potentially cool or interesting ideas people are trying to talk about because they don't fit into somebody else's vision for the world.
Carbon capture is an ultra long term solution. It undoes damage to make things better for our great grandchildren but nobody before that is likely to see much benefit from it. We’re not going to...
Carbon capture is an ultra long term solution. It undoes damage to make things better for our great grandchildren but nobody before that is likely to see much benefit from it.
We’re not going to not warm at this point. Realistically we can hold it down at 1-2 degrees of warming before stabilizing there at best. And then you’ll need to speed up sequestration of carbon through various means to undo the damage.
David Stanway (tap/click to read more) "It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy," said Xie, who will represent China at COP28 this year.
David Stanway
The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.
(tap/click to read more)
China is the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels including coal and oil, and its special climate envoy Xie Zhenhua was responding to comments by ambassadors at a forum in Beijing on Thursday ahead of the COP28 climate meeting in Dubai in November. Reuters obtained a copy of text of Xie's speech, and a video recording of the meeting.
Xie, however, said the intermittent nature of renewable energy and the immaturity of key technologies like energy storage means the world must continue to rely on fossil fuels to safeguard economic growth.
"It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy," said Xie, who will represent China at COP28 this year.
He also said he welcomed pledges made to him by his U.S. counterpart John Kerry that a $100 billion annual fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change would soon be made available, adding it was "only a drop in the bucket".
China has rejected U.S. attempts to treat climate change as a diplomatic "oasis" that can be separated from the broader geopolitical tensions between the two sides, with U.S. trade sanctions on Chinese solar panels still a sore point.
Xie said protectionism could drive up the price of solar panels by 20-25% and hold back the energy transition, and called on countries not to "politicise" cooperation in new energy.
He also reiterated China's opposition to the E.U. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which will impose carbon tariffs on imports from China and elsewhere.
Long-term human survival at this point is de facto unrealistic. But for the fundamental unfairness and uneven distribution of the suffering inherent to that inevitabillity, I for one would...
Long-term human survival at this point is de facto unrealistic. But for the fundamental unfairness and uneven distribution of the suffering inherent to that inevitabillity, I for one would otherwise welcome our self-imposed destruction.
No I think even a realistically pessimistic scenario is looking better than that. I’m thinking more like the world in 1880 but instead of London and New York being some of the few industrialized...
No I think even a realistically pessimistic scenario is looking better than that. I’m thinking more like the world in 1880 but instead of London and New York being some of the few industrialized cities we’ll have a few dozen “modern” cities/city states/small countries with advanced technology.
Those small high-tech alcoves will have the ability to subjugate all the others. It may well be better to let it all go. The natives didn't fare too well when the colonialists arrived with guns.
Those small high-tech alcoves will have the ability to subjugate all the others. It may well be better to let it all go.
The natives didn't fare too well when the colonialists arrived with guns.
It's unrealistic if you also have global imperial ambitions that you'reunwilling to abandon. Perhaps they could shut down a few of the hundreds of prison camps, turn off some of their domestic...
It's unrealistic if you also have global imperial ambitions that you'reunwilling to abandon. Perhaps they could shut down a few of the hundreds of prison camps, turn off some of their domestic surveillance, might help bring down that energy bill.
Per-capita CO2 emissions* is the only way to think about different countries' performance on climate change, and it boggles my mind that people expect China's energy footprint to somehow not expand with time while many developed countries are willing to do little to compromise or reorganize their lifestyle.
(*with adjustments for imported/exported goods)
Why would other countries be responsible for China's output? Yes, people buy things from China, but China is the one who has direct control over the energy and manufacturing infrastructure.
If the survival of the species depends on China reducing their coal plants and fossil fuel use, why would someone in Iowa be expected to fix that by buying less from China? If the dude in Iowa needs to consume less, stop selling to him.
I know the impulse is to put the blame at the doorstep of the West and the US for more or less everything, but China is responsible for its own emissions, the world can't afford to give anyone a pass on their emissions or carry them financially while they try to speed run the last leg of an industrial revolution. China is a big boy now, they need to take some responsibility too.
You're not inherently responsible, but you must realize, that they're not going to actually reduce emissions without the incentives - it's not rational for them to do so. I think it's hard for people in developed nations to understand that in developing nations, every kilogram of emissions is doing quite a lot - it's lifting people out of poverty, and becoming the sustenance that allows them to live. It's a very different situation than in developed countries, where it's often framed as luxuries. "Would I rather contribute to a 2 degree warming of the Earth or have my grandmother starve" is a much more difficult choice - humans are all locally selfish.
The developed world had their time of high emissions, when London's smog was so infamous there were songs written about it. Now they can reap the rewards, but if the developed world wants the developing world to materially harm itself for climate goals, then they can either share that wealth to bypass the high emissions stage, or deal with the reality that they're going to contribute to global emissions while developing.
Those are the only two choices. China is at the tail end of development, but the majority of the world is still undeveloped. If you want to take "countries are responsible for themselves!" route, then well, it is what it is, but I suppose the Earth will be getting a fair bit warmer in the future.
China is running hundreds of massive Uyghur prison camps, there are a lot of areas they can do better to reduce their emissions. The idea that everything they're doing is strictly necessary to prevent collapse back into third-world status is hard to believe. Xi Xinping has ambitions to unseat western hegemony, an ambition which goes far beyond what's necessary to have a prosperous, sustainable society.
To be clear, what are your expectations from the west to solve China's emission problem? And how do you see it effecting China differently than them scaling back unecessary sectors on their own?
From an actual policy perspective I don’t think the west needs to do anything because China is switching to renewables at a pace about as fast as you can expect. I don’t have an issue with the pace.
If the west wanted China to go green faster, then yes, monetary contributions to build infrastructure or non-monetary contributions like sharing R&D or lowering tariffs for renewables is the only actual decision.
Beyond China, which like I said is nearing the tail end of development anyway, there’s the whole of the global south left to develop. Fundamentally the calculus for these countries is different than ours: global warming sucks, but so does living in poverty, and so does living as an economic minion of great powers. They’ll choose a world with 2 degrees of warming and wealth. On the other hand, incremental development does far less for the developed world, and climate change does a lot worse. Using money to bridge the gap, to make renewables the right economic choice, is the only lever.
If you just say, “well, if you keep on, we’ll end up with 2-3 degrees or worse of warming”, many countries will rightfully say, “we’ll meet you there, then”.
I remain unconvinced that world should need to subsidize the second largest economy on the planet, or that there's nothing China can do itself to change its unsustainable trajectory. They have been approving hundreds of new coal plants yearly, which makes any renewables far less effective. And as I pointed out, there are many non-critical sectors of their state that could be scaled back without people starving (and in fact might produce some good).
In what sense is China a "minion" of the west? You talk of the country as if it's some backwater nation. Their lack of trustworthiness and complete rejection of geopolitical norms has isolated them and given them less political clout than they wish they had, but China is not entitled to be the "top dog", they are not entitled to empire. They need to relinquish that goal and focus on domestic policy, scale back things like their mass detainment facilities and surveillance infrastructure etc. The west cannot do that for them, and giving them resources in no way guarantees that they would use those towards any kind of climate agenda.
Their calculus may be different, but the climate doesn't care. They're emitting a third of the world's emissions, that's a hard fact.
Yes, which is why it's even more critical for China to stop faking a limp and setting climate goals that are conveniently far enough out for them to try to complete their campaign for global dominance, rather than setting them around what the science dictates is necessary. The world should be aiding actual third world nations, not China.
I don't think we should subsidize China, because I think their trajectory is fine. Their per capita emissions, while growing, are still quite far from the US, and the second derivative of their emissions over time is negative, and certainly has gone negative far faster than the US did. But if you did think China is not cutting emissions fast enough, then yes, you should subsidize them.
You can say, "China should do X", "China should do Y" all you want, but in the end Xi is not quaking in his boots under threat of your disappointment. They don't care - they will do what they think is in their self interest, as all sovereign nations do, in the end. You can either make it so that what's best for their self interest is clean energy, or you can let them emit.
There are no other choices. No amount of saying the word "should" actually causes changes.
It's not about my disappointment, it's about the hard reality of climate change. Xi places his imperial ambitions above that, and as you say, there's nothing we can do as outsiders, it's the choices of the CCP that determine what happens in their borders.
The climate does not care about per capita emissions. I disagree strongly that China is anywhere close to on track. I think you've sort of side stepped most of the relevant points I'm making so I think this discussion is about at an end. I think the conclusion is; humanity is fucked due to greed, hyper-authoritarianism and self-interest.
As all others, I would say. Compare per capita emissions of China and some developed couintries and ask yourself who really is the one that should lower its emissions.
And as I've said repeatedly, the climate does not care who is putting out more emissions and whether it's per capita or if they had some giant co2 burn pit.
I cannot understand why this point is repeatedly being ignored. Arguments about per capita simply do not matter, it all goes into the atmosphere.
"We're all in this together" means a lot more when everyone is on roughly the same footing and is sacrificing roughly the same to get there. Carbon footprint per capita is a much more reasonable and humane metric.
The USA is a fat person eating three meals a day. Europe is a average person eating two meals a day. China is five scrawny people eating one meal a day. US and Europe are telling China that we all need to do our part and stop eating one meal a day, because China eats the most meals.
And when the food runs out as all finite resources do then no one eats. It's unreasonable for anyone to state they cannot reduce usage based on Capitalism's demand for infinite growth. Only one input matters-- the limitations of the physical world.
This is not a China vs United States issue. It's one of the lack of any critical thinking on this matter and the fantasy thinking that human systems have any precedence at all.
And as many have said here repeatedly - starving man will not care about some fat bourgeois telling him to stop eating.
China has a billion people in it, that’s about 1/7 of the entire world population. And many of them are still quite poor. Imperial ambitions aside, the need to develop economically is a humanitarian imperative for them. You ask about subsidizing the second largest economy in the world, but they’d ask about expecting a country of people with an average output of $12k a year to subsidize countries with GDPs per capita that are double or triple that. And even that largely based on the compounded returns to wealth looted out of China, India, and Africa.
It's a sungle example, but there are close to a million detainees across hundreds of facilities. It's a perfect example of an area where a reduction could help without any kind of economic detriment.
The CCP is extremely dependent on delivering economic prosperity - that's basically what keeps them in power despite their despotism. They literally can't sacrifice economic gains to tackle climate change.
That said, China imports a ton of oil which could easily be blockaded by the US, so they have a major geopolitical incentive to wean themselves off oil/LNG.
Then sacrifice things like their prison camps, that have absolutely nothing to do with economic prosperity.
Because the country of purchase is the one that should bear the responsibility of the good.
If the USA outsources all automobile manufacturing, but then purchases 80% of all automobiles, then they are 80% culpable for the impact of that manufacturing.
The country that extracts the oil should have as much responsibility as the buyer.
What are your expectations of the West then in this regard? And how do you see it effecting China?
If you look per-capita, China has less emissions than either the USA, most of Europe, and Australia.
By that metric, they're outperforming the West and maybe we should be looking to them for example.
(yes I'm being snarky. China has 17% of the world's population. Its reasonable for them to have the most emissions in the world.)
The climate unfortunately does not care about per capita, the only thing that matters is how much greenhouse gas is being pumped into the atmosphere.
Why not? The UK and China have the same CO2 emissions per capita (even after adjusted for trade), but the UK's emissions are falling and China's are rising, even while quality of living is higher in the UK.
That's fair. I think carbon tariffs are going to be essential to reducing China's CO2 emissions. 3/4ths of their emissions come from coal, so a solution would need to price that cost in to make the marginally higher cost for natural gas/renewables in production justifiable.
So it sounds like their take is that it isn't possible to take fossil files to zero, but to offset fossils by carbon capture?
I don't think I'm against that. I think agreeing to do something and try to Lower is a whole lot better than arguing about whether or not it's impossible or not .
It sounds like China agrees about the importance of climate, whereas the title of this article is actually very combative.
The thing about carbon capture is that the scale of it would need to be mind-boggling to even make a dent. Granted, if any country is set up for scale it's China, but it's difficult to not be dubious until it's been achieved.
The issue is that this tech doesn't even exist yet, It's a pipe dream.
We need to be pushing to reduce fossil fuel reliance because that tech doesn't exist.
When the tech comes along? It'll be great to scrub the atmosphere of the carbon dioxide already in it and get us back down to a sensible level. Until then, sitting there having these conversations is like me sitting there "Man I really do prefer warp engines for travelling FTL"
Exactly! I get so mad when politicians talk about "inventing" our way out of the climate crisis - because it's not just China saying this. Several countries are recently saying that they aren't going to live up to the Paris goals, including mine, Denmark. Instead we have politicians from the major parties just being like "uhm we'll fix it eventually, trust me bro!"
Ugh.
The problems with "we'll find a technological solution" are as follows:
So "a technological solution" usually means "let's hope that someone magically replaces the entire energy industry on a shoestring budget".
"We want to continue to try and get a high score that won't matter when we've all burnt to death"
You're completely right. But anything is better than literally nothing. I'm glad they're showing something
I don't agree that anything is better than literally nothing. If you're doing something, but it's fundamentally ineffective, that something takes up time and energy that could be going into something that would actually work to solve the issue.
If someone is still doing nothing, there's space for something new in a way that doesn't exist if they're already doing something they say will solve it.
I don't know about this. If someone is doing nothing, there space for something new in a way thay doesn't exist? I don't think that actually happens.
Because every time someone tries to suggest something new, someone else jumps in and says exactly what was said above, that it's a pipe dream, or it's not ready, or it's too uncertain, or it's a distraction.
You can't expect anyone to be able to offer any new ideas if you have the attitude that some ideas are "fundamentally ineffective" because everything is fundamentally ineffective until you actually commit to it. Nothing works at scale when you do it in the lab the first time.
Renewables were fundamentally too expensive until the US and Germany and China all decided to make a big push to make them less expensive. And it worked.
But it was "unfeasible" at the time, even though it obviously wasn't really. It's just a thing people say when they really mean they'd just prefer to do something else.
Maybe they don't even know what they want to be done yet but they just really don't want to do ______ for some reason, so they claim it's impossible and no one else should even spend time trying to think about it.
And I just think that's boring. It's boring to suppress all the potentially cool or interesting ideas people are trying to talk about because they don't fit into somebody else's vision for the world.
Carbon capture is an ultra long term solution. It undoes damage to make things better for our great grandchildren but nobody before that is likely to see much benefit from it.
We’re not going to not warm at this point. Realistically we can hold it down at 1-2 degrees of warming before stabilizing there at best. And then you’ll need to speed up sequestration of carbon through various means to undo the damage.
David Stanway
(tap/click to read more)
"It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy," said Xie, who will represent China at COP28 this year.
Long-term human survival at this point is de facto unrealistic. But for the fundamental unfairness and uneven distribution of the suffering inherent to that inevitabillity, I for one would otherwise welcome our self-imposed destruction.
Humans will survive. Civilization and our chance to be space faring will not.
Correct. We probably won't have VR porn in 100 years, but there will almost certainly still be some farms going.
No I think even a realistically pessimistic scenario is looking better than that. I’m thinking more like the world in 1880 but instead of London and New York being some of the few industrialized cities we’ll have a few dozen “modern” cities/city states/small countries with advanced technology.
Those small high-tech alcoves will have the ability to subjugate all the others. It may well be better to let it all go.
The natives didn't fare too well when the colonialists arrived with guns.
Meh, if you believe it's impossible, you won't be motivated to even seek out whether it is. This is more political than anything.
It's unrealistic if you also have global imperial ambitions that you'reunwilling to abandon. Perhaps they could shut down a few of the hundreds of prison camps, turn off some of their domestic surveillance, might help bring down that energy bill.
The US hasn't phased them out either. They just pretend it will magically happen in the future.
we are so fucked