6 ms·

The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. China produces 60% of global Co2. When you look at the graph, Europe isn'

by floro 23d ago

The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. China produces 60% of global Co2. When you look at the graph, Europe isn't even visible. If we truly cared about climate change we would stop buying from China. But we all know this won't ever happen because we don't really care enough. It's just virtue signaling. Buy an AC you're not saving the planet by sweating your ass off.

Dumblydorr 23d ago
Per capita emissions are way higher in the USA. It’d make a much bigger dent if Americans changed their ways than citizens of developing nations.
Windchaser 23d ago
> The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. If you look at total historic emissions to date, the US is responsible for 25% of all of them, and the EU is close behind at 22%. China is at 13%. And if you look at historic emissions per person, then each American has produced ~8x as much as the average Chinese person. https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Yes, the west has played the dominant role in GHG emissions. I don't blame China for now, quite recently, increasing their GHG emissions as they try to get to standards of living we've had for many decades. As we led the way into the industrial revolution and high GHG emissions, we should also lead the way back out. And yet US emissions per capita are still about 50% higher than Chinese!
- contingencies 23d ago
  Also, to be more holistic in evaluating things through this icky nationalist lens, China has been a globally significant contributor to alternate fuels including solar and micro-hydro, plus the transition to EVs notably including EV buses (now becoming globally popular) and high speed rail.
- 0xy 23d ago
  96.6% of new energy capacity in the US came from green sources from 2024 to 2026 (nuclear, batteries, wind, hydro, solar). In China, in that time period, they built 52 brand new coal plants.
  - Windchaser 22d ago
    Sure. But again, compare our current GHG emissions per capita. Or set aside new electrical energy capacity, and instead look at other GHG sources: automobiles, agriculture, concrete. Are we doing well there? Mostly, no, not great, and we should be much further along in decarbonizing than we are. For the most part, the US has not taken ACC seriously.
    - 0xy 22d ago
      US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis. So, yeah, all of those sources have declined in emissions. Particularly automobiles, as the US pioneered EV development.
      - Windchaser 22d ago
        > US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis. And yet we still have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. Nearly tied with Russia for "highest per capita emissions of major economies", see [1]. Since the IPCC was formed in 1988 and ACC widely recognized as a problem, US per capita GHG co2-equivalent emissions have dropped from 25.2 t/capita/year to 17.5, for a cumulative decrease of 30% [2]. This is a rate of -0.95%/year, which is not what I would call "rapid". And dropping to only 70% of a really high mark still leaves us at a really high mark. But really, I just don't understand your argument. Are you saying that a 30% drop over 40 years is a lot, when we should have been aiming for dropping by 70-100% in that time frame? Are you saying that our emissions dropped significantly, even though we all know there was major political obstruction to plans to cut fossil fuel use? Are you saying that what we've done is enough, even though the US is still one of the highest emitters per capita and the Earth is on track to greatly overshoot the +1.5C goal? Current best estimate is +2.7C by 2100. I can't make the general direction of your argument make sense. Seems like you're overplaying what we've done and downplaying how far there is left to go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:2024_Worldwide_GHG_Emissions_(per_capita;_by_region;_growth).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states
- floro 23d ago
  >has played There you have it. My comment was about the current post-industrial west. You are making a disingenuous attempt at shifting blame onto the west. The main problem countries today are China and India.
  - pioyi 23d ago
    China is below the US and Russia per capita. You can't compare a country with 1.4 billion people to the US. He just gave you the data and you refused to read it even though it talks about the current state of things (besides past emissions). Per capita, India is on place 124/207.
  - Windchaser 22d ago
    > You are making a disingenuous attempt at shifting blame onto the west. What makes this disingenuous? I thought I was pretty clear and honest about my belief that the West is to blame for a huge portion of the warming so far -- and this is backed by data -- and I was clear and honest that I think we are not meeting our responsibility today to lead the way out of GHG emissions. And even today, we USians still have a rather higher GHG emissions per capita than the Chinese do. (India is barely even in the picture, and their emissions per capita today are 1/6 of the US') So, yes: this still represents a problem with the *current* west. We should be rather further along in decarbonizing, but we are dragging our feet, held up by the fact that a lot of folks don't want to acknowledge that ACC is a problem.
    - floro 22d ago
      What makes it disingenuous is you're using past data to make statements about the current situation. Of course the West / US produced the most Co2 overall, because it's been through industrialization. What matters now is the current net contributors to global Co2, and that is about 60% China and at least 10% India. This is because we outsource our Co2 to those countries through manufacturing. My main point still is that WE don't make a difference. Saving electricity in Europe changes nothing, not does buying an EV. If we want to make a change we need to stop buying Chinese manufactured products.
Quarrelsome 23d ago
go to shop, notice that much food has been flown in from the four corners of the earth just to satisfy you. Go home, look at all the objects in your house, do the same thing. Then tell you that this has nothing to do with you.
- Garora 22d ago
  Food transportation is a very low percentage of the food's footprint, what you eat is more important, but you dont want to hink about it
  - Quarrelsome 21d ago
    who wants to eat meat rarely? Some people eat it every meal.
jvwww 23d ago
The West just outsources pollution to China.

by floro 23d ago

Dumblydorr 23d ago

Per capita emissions are way higher in the USA. It’d make a much bigger dent if Americans changed their ways than citizens of developing nations.

Windchaser 23d ago

> The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. If you look at total historic emissions to date, the US is responsible for 25% of all of them, and the EU is close behind at 22%. China is at 13%. And if you look at historic emissions per person, then each American has produced ~8x as much as the average Chinese person. https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Yes, the west has played the dominant role in GHG emissions. I don't blame China for now, quite recently, increasing their GHG emissions as they try to get to standards of living we've had for many decades. As we led the way into the industrial revolution and high GHG emissions, we should also lead the way back out. And yet US emissions per capita are still about 50% higher than Chinese!

contingencies 23d ago
Also, to be more holistic in evaluating things through this icky nationalist lens, China has been a globally significant contributor to alternate fuels including solar and micro-hydro, plus the transition to EVs notably including EV buses (now becoming globally popular) and high speed rail.
0xy 23d ago
96.6% of new energy capacity in the US came from green sources from 2024 to 2026 (nuclear, batteries, wind, hydro, solar). In China, in that time period, they built 52 brand new coal plants.
- Windchaser 22d ago
  Sure. But again, compare our current GHG emissions per capita. Or set aside new electrical energy capacity, and instead look at other GHG sources: automobiles, agriculture, concrete. Are we doing well there? Mostly, no, not great, and we should be much further along in decarbonizing than we are. For the most part, the US has not taken ACC seriously.
  - 0xy 22d ago
    US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis. So, yeah, all of those sources have declined in emissions. Particularly automobiles, as the US pioneered EV development.
    - Windchaser 22d ago
      > US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis. And yet we still have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. Nearly tied with Russia for "highest per capita emissions of major economies", see [1]. Since the IPCC was formed in 1988 and ACC widely recognized as a problem, US per capita GHG co2-equivalent emissions have dropped from 25.2 t/capita/year to 17.5, for a cumulative decrease of 30% [2]. This is a rate of -0.95%/year, which is not what I would call "rapid". And dropping to only 70% of a really high mark still leaves us at a really high mark. But really, I just don't understand your argument. Are you saying that a 30% drop over 40 years is a lot, when we should have been aiming for dropping by 70-100% in that time frame? Are you saying that our emissions dropped significantly, even though we all know there was major political obstruction to plans to cut fossil fuel use? Are you saying that what we've done is enough, even though the US is still one of the highest emitters per capita and the Earth is on track to greatly overshoot the +1.5C goal? Current best estimate is +2.7C by 2100. I can't make the general direction of your argument make sense. Seems like you're overplaying what we've done and downplaying how far there is left to go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:2024_Worldwide_GHG_Emissions_(per_capita;_by_region;_growth).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states
floro 23d ago
>has played There you have it. My comment was about the current post-industrial west. You are making a disingenuous attempt at shifting blame onto the west. The main problem countries today are China and India.
- pioyi 23d ago
  China is below the US and Russia per capita. You can't compare a country with 1.4 billion people to the US. He just gave you the data and you refused to read it even though it talks about the current state of things (besides past emissions). Per capita, India is on place 124/207.
- Windchaser 22d ago
  > You are making a disingenuous attempt at shifting blame onto the west. What makes this disingenuous? I thought I was pretty clear and honest about my belief that the West is to blame for a huge portion of the warming so far -- and this is backed by data -- and I was clear and honest that I think we are not meeting our responsibility today to lead the way out of GHG emissions. And even today, we USians still have a rather higher GHG emissions per capita than the Chinese do. (India is barely even in the picture, and their emissions per capita today are 1/6 of the US') So, yes: this still represents a problem with the *current* west. We should be rather further along in decarbonizing, but we are dragging our feet, held up by the fact that a lot of folks don't want to acknowledge that ACC is a problem.
  - floro 22d ago
    What makes it disingenuous is you're using past data to make statements about the current situation. Of course the West / US produced the most Co2 overall, because it's been through industrialization. What matters now is the current net contributors to global Co2, and that is about 60% China and at least 10% India. This is because we outsource our Co2 to those countries through manufacturing. My main point still is that WE don't make a difference. Saving electricity in Europe changes nothing, not does buying an EV. If we want to make a change we need to stop buying Chinese manufactured products.

Quarrelsome 23d ago

go to shop, notice that much food has been flown in from the four corners of the earth just to satisfy you. Go home, look at all the objects in your house, do the same thing. Then tell you that this has nothing to do with you.

Garora 22d ago
Food transportation is a very low percentage of the food's footprint, what you eat is more important, but you dont want to hink about it
- Quarrelsome 21d ago
  who wants to eat meat rarely? Some people eat it every meal.

jvwww 23d ago

The West just outsources pollution to China.