You must log in or register to comment.
- Anyone@mander.xyzEnglish1 year
This doesn’t make sense. China’s new climate plans are insufficient as per a wide range of global experts claiming the 10% is by far not enough.
- 1 year
it makes perfect sense. even if china is so far behind where they need to be, they’re still far ahead of where the US is at. the only reason you’re balking at this is your implicit bias that it’s not a western country in the lead.
- Anyone@mander.xyzEnglish1 year
China is ahead of the US, behind the EU and many other (Western and non-Western) countries (with almost no country or bloc is on track to reach the Paris agreement targets). These are simple facts. As the world’s largest polluter, China should do much more than it does, but it seems there is not even a willingness to do so.
I won’t comment on your accusation of being biased. I am not long here on Lemmy, but the reaction here if and when you criticize China is often weird. It’s certainly not all, but some people appear to be personally insulted if you just say something critical of this regime. That’s often not a sane reaction.
- 1 year
First, most credit should be based on recent years. You can only ask for relative progress, meaning improving year over year from recent progress instead of going from 0 to 100% renewables by tomorrow.
EU has greatest success in recent years in terms of emission reductions, but only because their energy growth has been slowing. China has much higher renewables growth from a much higher renewables base, but their emission reductions are more modest because of massive energy growth relative to massive manufacturing growth. At the same time, any growth rate at all from here is going to lead to massive emission reductions in upcomming years, just as it can continue in EU.
Trump’s UN speech is desperate extortion/war cry on EU and world to end breakthrough dead ender energy extermination on the cusp of clear human victory path.
- 1 year
What a headline.
China - for the first time - announced an emissions target, and it falls short according to practically all independent experts.
China’s new emissions reduction target, announced at a high-level climate summit at the United Nations in New York, has been judged by experts as “timid” and falling short of the effort needed to meet global climate goals, even though it represents an increase in the country’s climate ambition.
- mrdown@lemmy.worldBanned1 year
China could lead other countries while their effort being insufissant, no contradiction in the article
- 1 year
Every country could lead … This is also true for China. It could lead, but it doesn’t.
- 1 year
Buthan, Chile, Costa Rica, Ethopia, Kenya, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, The Gambia look best, maybe one of the countries for which no data is available.
None is on the way to Paris, though.
- 1 year
I’ve been very critical of - well, not so much China or Chinese people as the current regime, but credit where credit is due - they have made an phenomenal effort on the environmental front, and there’s plenty the rest of us could learn from that.
- Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 year
Their emissions per capita are up like 200% in the past couple decades. Meanwhile the UK and most of Scandinavia (not Norway) have cut it in half.
- 1 year
I’m not sure who downvoted you, but China’s carbon emissions p/c have more than tripled this century, and for only two years (up to 2022) in that period have they been less than the year prior, and even then, by tiny amounts.
Plenty of countries have worse figures (including the US, Canada, and Australia), but unless the trajectory has changed notably since 2022, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. The US has dropped by a third in the same period, though it’s much too high.
- RunJun@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 year
Truly shameful for the US. Green energy should have been reframed as national defense long ago. Maybe then some of these fucks would get out of the way.
- 1 year
Heh. I’m reminded of the story of what happened when Donald Sadoway was pitching liquid metal batteries to the US Army. He was asked what would happen if a sniper were to put a .50 BMG into one of them. His response? “Well, it’ll leak a little inert non-toxic metal and then self-seal whereupon it’ll just keep working”.
…We still don’t use those for reasons I cannot fathom, despite them being literally cheap as dirt and perfect for grid-level storage.
Every time somebody talk about renewables, some twat also goes “but what about storage?” and has me screaming “WE’VE HAD THE PERFECT SOLUTION SINCE 2009, GOD DAMN IT!”.
- Auli@lemmy.caEnglish1 year
Because they are not feasible. I don’t know how many battery stories I have heard over the years and none of them have ever been mass produced. Discovering something in a lab is not the same as mass producing stuff.
