if not for China emissions wouldnt have gone past the point of no return.

orangeboats 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.

So what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.

▲

orangeboats 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China?

Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?

▲

AuthAuth 2 days ago | parent [-]

China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.

	▲	orangeboats a day ago \| parent [-]
		It is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.

▲

showmexyz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Comulative CO2 emissions tell a different story.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions

▲

AuthAuth 2 days ago | parent [-]

emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.

▲

digitalPhonix 2 days ago | parent [-]

What does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"?

The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.

▲

AuthAuth 2 days ago | parent [-]

Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions.

If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.

	▲	digitalPhonix a day ago \| parent [-]
		So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear? I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.

▲

Arnt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would not have done so yet you mean.

The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.

▲

AuthAuth 2 days ago | parent [-]

You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.

	▲	Arnt a day ago \| parent [-]
		Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration. It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before. Blaming China here is disingenious.

▲

deadfoxygrandpa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

yeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor

	▲	AuthAuth 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		At the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.