| ▲ | gzread 16 hours ago |
| China is some years behind our industrial development then undevelopment, and is building an entire USA of solar panels every year or whatever - can we expect them to quickly reduce emissions soon? |
|
| ▲ | epistasis 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| A year ago, the IEA thought China's emissions had peaked: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-fuel-demand-m... And this recent assessment puts emissions from China at "flat or falling" for the past 21 months: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... |
|
| ▲ | bko 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought the world and civilization would collapse because of carbon emissions. It's either serious or it's not. If it's serious then it doesn't really matter right? It's like you're on a boat that sprung a leak and everyone grabs a bucket. But a few people choose to not help because it's not fair for whatever reason. |
| |
| ▲ | squibonpig 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you a climate change doesn't matter guy or a china is the climate change causer guy? You can't do both at once. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To deniers both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is continue using fossil fuels no matter what. | | |
| ▲ | gzread 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To "alarmists" both "climate change does matter" and "China isn't the only problem" are valid arguments because that's a logical AND: "it's a problem and we're causing it, so we should do something". When you inverse it you use DeMorgan's law and you have to disprove one, either "it's not a problem" or "we can't do anything to stop it" but they typically do it in a way where one purported disproof invalidates the other, for some reason. They argue both "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem but we can't do anything to stop it". | | | |
| ▲ | t0bia_s 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To alarmists both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is stop using fossil fuels no matter what. Im not sure what is this type of debate good for. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | What "both" arguments are so-called alarmists using? What's an alarmist, exactly? And yes, the objective is to stop using fossil fuels. That's not exactly a secret agenda, it's the whole fucking point. | | |
| ▲ | t0bia_s 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | What is denier, exactly? Seriously, there is no debate with this rethoric. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bko 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and the focus people have on developed countries is just signaling. A weird anti-west sentiment from people who almost exclusively live a wealthy life in the west. I'm not an expert, but from what I have read I believe humans do have an effect on climate. However this doesn't mean that any draconian measure that would essentially impose one world government and population control (which is the inevitable outcome of all of this) is preferable. But more importantly I'm anti stupid measures like restricting air-conditioning because they make a negligible impact and literally kill 100k+ people a year. | | |
| ▲ | lukeschlather 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | China has roughly .4 AC units per person while the USA has roughly 1 AC unit per person. You are simultaneously arguing everyone should have an AC, and that China should stop expanding their usage of AC. I'd argue everyone should have an AC if they need one (probably China needs more than they have.) But we shouldn't build any more fossil fuel extraction, people who need AC should figure out how to do it with batteries and renewable energy. (Nuclear is fine, if it makes sense economically.) We don't need population control, we just need to add sufficiently large taxes on things we want less of. AC isn't a thing we want less of, it's carbon emissions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | reitzensteinm 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nah, the analogy for your argument is: Two Americans and ten Chinese are on a lifeboat. The Americans are each eating two sandwiches a day and the Chinese are eating one. Supplies are low. You do the math and note that the Chinese sure are eating a lot of sandwiches. | |
| ▲ | __s 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To your metaphor, their point is that if everyone is grabbing buckets while someone else is working to spring more leaks, maybe someone needs to set aside their bucket & stop the person springing leaks | |
| ▲ | thfuran 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? | | |
| ▲ | bko 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is that China is the only thing that matters at this point. It's a lot bigger, has surpassed OECD and is growing quickly. Every decline of emissions by developed countries is more than made up for by growing China emissions | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | triceratops 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > can we expect [China] to quickly reduce emissions soon? They did, last year. |
|
| ▲ | peab 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| they continue to build more solar, more wind, but also more coal power plants. |
| |
| ▲ | mbgerring 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, they are not building new coal fired power plants at the same rate they are expanding renewables. This is several years out of date. | |
| ▲ | bschwarz 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China is also replacing old, inefficient coal power plants with new ones. |
|
