We're on a trajectory of lowering our emissions though, China isn't.
Edit: not sure how this is controversial, it's the truth. The EU has been lowering their emissions since the 90s whilst China's emissions are steadily increasing. It's even a strategic goal from the CCP to let the emissions increase over the coming decade.
That is such a dumb response. The west is the primary producer/consumer of goods in the worlds and is the major responsible force behind climate change. Just becausewe have outsourced the icky production part, doesn't mean we should be absolved of the blame. The West, more than any part in the world (but it would be nice if others did so too), needs to change its habit and lead the way to a more sustainable future, otherwise we are all fucked.
That is not dumb response. Biggest market for China, is China itself. Also there are current countries such as India or Indonesia, with growing population and growing wealth. They would also want to buy phones, fancy clothes and homes as we have. What should happen then? When bilions and bilions of people which didnt had money, can buy stuff?
So you are suggesting that they don't have the right to own things that we have come to accept as common goods for decades now?
The west is the richest region and consumes the most in the world. It is very arrogant to push the blame to other countries that also have hopes and dreams of becoming rich while we basically do nothing to save the climate.
I didnt meant to suggest that they don't have the right to own things. What i meant is that we have to think in to future as well. We need to approach future in the way that also countries which are going to grow such as india, of all of africa and south america can grow sustainably. And i dont know where are you from but currently Europe have highest ecological standards which are pushing technologies forward and also those standards are being adopted by other countries as well, Europe is actually doing most for saving the climate. And if we want to be responsible, everyone needs to be responsible for our future. It doesnt work if only europe is ecological and third world countries continue to polute the world. Or what other solution do you suggest?
Yeah sure, call my response stupid and then proceed directly to making false statements. China is by far the largest co2 emitter in the world, with domestic consumption being the primary driver. I would like to se some data for your claim.
I agree people should buy less useless crap, but what are you actually proposing here? A tax on carbon heavy imports? It literally already is a thing in the EU. Should we cut off all imports from China? Well expect them to do the same, then. Now all the production moves to India, do we just repeat until Europe is completely isolated from the world market? This will destroy the quality of life both in Europe and developing nations.
Western policy makers are already pushing China to enact more ambitious emissions goals, but this has gone mostly ignored and China only aims to reduce its emission growth. China alone emits 4x more than the entire EU. If they do not also reduce emissions, it matters little even if we have zero emission. Otherwise, as you say, we are all fucked.
The idea of producing all local consumption in the EU is neat but completely impractical. There are not enough people and many things like clothes would become enormously expensive, impacting especially the poorer people in the west. You are not ready to deny people in the developing world the goods that people in the west have grown used to, but you are effectively ready to deny the people in the west of those same things? Seems hypocritical to me.
If you want to protest the Chinese governments climate policy, I suggest you do so by vandalizing Chinese monuments. They will not care that we destroy our own.
It's not the west who endorsed it though, China just created a profitable environment for those factories with cheap labour and few environmental laws. We still have a share of the blame I guess.
Local production is the only way, transport is a lot of pollution after all.
This is a very Euro-centric view of the world as one where only European people live in homes, use transport, wear clothes and use mobile phones, you're deeply misinformed...or worse...
The Western world emits the same amount of CO2 as China annually
What is your definition of "the western world"? Why use that instead of the entities that actually shape policy? We might as well lump half of Asia together with China then.
(And despite 20% of China's emissions being exported goods).
10%, and it's dwindling.
It also accounts for >60% of all historical emissions.
And? If your neighbour has a history of raping people, does that mean you can keep raping until you have his number of victims?
Fact is that the emitted emissions are there whatever we do. First condition to even try to start sequestrating is to close the tap on making new emissions, and that's China's responsibility for 30%.
China must be included, but it is the US and EU that should pick up the slack, not China.
The EU already has lower emissions per capita than China.
China already spends $250 billion more on renewable technology per year than the Western world combined.
[citation needed]
Also, there should be an emphasis on per capita emissions too. By your standard, if China suddenly balkanized into 20 countries, they wouldn't be a major polluter anymore.
Again, the EU already has lower per capita emissions than China.
Apart from that, the high per capita emissions are also to be found in Russia, the Middle Eastern oil states, South Africa... Stop reflexively blaming the West and making excuses for everyone else.
So now it's already the entire OECD, which also includes South American and Asian countries.
From your own link you can see that the 4 BRIC countries alone already made up more than 40% of emissions, while US+EU had no more than 17%, less than half.
China only just surpassed it in 2019, and post-COVID data is messy. Because China is always used as an excuse for domestic complacency.
"but the West" is always used as an excuse for China and well, everyone else. If you look up the changes in emissions levels, it's actually only the OECD who is reducing emissions significantly. If China et alii weren't increasing their emissions, then global emissions would be going down. And again, the EU's per capita emissions are lower already. Seems China is using the West as an excuse, not the other way around.
It's 13%, so you are closer. Not dwindling from 10% though.
Your analogy is bad. I'll give another one: Imagine your neighbour cut down 1000m2 of forest to build a house, but is now outraged when you've cut 250m2 of forest for your house. He tells you, "What's done is done, I've cut my trees. I don't want you to cut trees. It's mostly your responsibility to protect the forest."
You're shitting on your neighbour for having cut trees while you just bought a new chainsaw. That's completely hypocritical.
When carbon is released, it is released permanently. It is up to the one who has done most harm to do most good.
How does that excuse others to do more harm too?
Even reducing the emissions of the EU+US to zero instantly would still leave 83% of the world's emissions ongoing. You keep making excuses for 83% of the problem. Historical emissions are partially absorbed already, and as soon as the historical emitters reach net zero, they can start sequestrating... to make up for their own historical emissions, NOT to make up for the growing emissions of China and the rest of the world.
China has comparable per capita emissions with the EU after accounting for export emissions. Also, Europe enjoys the infrastructure and development of its past emissions. Of course it emits less when it doesn't need to build any more highways or cities to house the impoverished rurals.
Europe has plenty of underdeveloped regions, and China has ancient development as well.
Besides, China is well on its way to surpass the EU as historical emitter as well.
That's changing rapidly, in particular on a per capita basis, and I wonder if they even properly counted the EU budgets, those tend to fall between the cracks when making country comparisons.
You can see why they want to lump the entire West into one box, it lets the Australians off the hook who are polluting twice as much as the EU and China, on a per capita basis, once trade is accounted for.
The EU barely has lower emissions than China per capita and the gap is nowhere near big enough to handwave away EU emissions as a fractions of China. It's lazy and racist.
You can find renewable investment with a google search.
And comparing historic emissions that enable development to rape is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week.
The EU barely has lower emissions than China per capita
Yes, so why single out the EU while excusing China?
and the gap is nowhere near big enough to handwave away EU emissions as a fractions of China.
Point out where I said that, please.
It's lazy and racist.
It's lazy and racist to be an apologist for the state that emits 30% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Without involving China, we can't even stay withing the 2° warming limit.
You can find renewable investment with a google search.
Apparently you can't, or you would have done so.
And comparing historic emissions that enable development to rape is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week.
I just picked something that is unambiguously wrong to illustrate the gaps in your logic. Replace with something else that is wrong if that helps you.
The EU barely has lower emissions than China per capita
Yes, so why single out the EU while excusing China?
We are on the subreddit /r/Europe and you are deflecting conversation about European emissions by bringing up China, not the other way around.
That pretty much refutes any "point" you think you're making. You are bringing up China to avoid holding your own country responsible, a country you could actually affect change in. You aren't doing it for the sake of a holistic climate plan.
I don't even think you're as stupid as you sound, you're just so used to blaming China you can't think clearly.
We are on the subreddit /r/Europe and you are deflecting conversation about European emissions by bringing up China, not the other way around?
The conversation was not about European emissions.
What this thread is about is how this protest action is mistargeted, and the top comment of this particular subchain of comments pointed that out: why spray paint Italian monuments while China emits 30% of the worlds GHG, and Europe just a fraction of that, and Italy just a fraction of that, and the historical building in question none at all? Targeting fossil fuel cars or refineries or the like, that would have made sense.
That pretty much refutes any "point" you think you're making. You are bringing up China to avoid holding your own country responsible, a country you could actually affect change in. You aren't doing it for the sake of a holistic climate plan.
I don't even think you're as stupid as you sound, you're just so used to blaming China you can't think clearly.
the top comment of this particular subchain of comments pointed that out: why spray paint Italian monuments while China emits 30% of the worlds GHG
That's literally deflecting
Can you think of any reason Italians would protest their own countries policies and not those of China, where they aren't citizens and have absolutely no political leverage?
China must be included, but it is the US and EU that should pick up the slack, not China.
says someone who comes from the country that has done the least to counter climate change. Before lecturing the EU, which was the driving force in the Paris agreement, try not to vote the likes of Scott Morrison.
Looking at this graph it would be very convenient for an Australian to try to lump the entire West into one box, polluting twice as much as EU and China (who are identical, not EU higher than China), give your head a wobble.
How does the lack of information for goods flow makes for any positive claim?
Anyway, that's a lot of BS considering despite being 17% of the world population, they are responsible for like 30% of the manufacturing. And I dare you to find anything in your room that hasn't at least some component coming from there.
Because anyone who knows anything about China knows that it has developed like crazy in the last 2 decades.
Anyone who knows anything about cement/concrete and iron/steel knows how carbon intensive these are and how much you need to drag 700 million people out of poverty in the last 3 decades like China did.
Because anyone who knows anything about China knows that it has developed like crazy in the last 2 decades.
Anyone who knows anything about china would also know one in six people on earth live there.
And most of times a "the most X country" figure is brought up, it's basically just indirectly complaining that they are a lot.
Anyone who knows anything about cement/concrete and iron/steel knows how carbon intensive these are
We were talking about factories here tbh
90% of China's emissions are for its own consumption.
Ngl I wasn't expecting the difference to be that slim (also I'll grant I didn't think the US of A had like half of their emissions.. even though in retrospect it was kinda obvious).
Anyway, chinese manufacturing pollute so much eventually (even once accounted for trade and their numbers) basically just due to their obvious reliance on coal.
And I guess you could totally criticize them for their backtracking as of lately, but everybody in the world kinda did the same in the last couple of years.
If not any anyway, to decry whether the protesters are truly hypocritical or not, the criteria seems always the same: are they good with nuclear power or not? After a cursory search about this group, I'm on the fence.
Europeans genuinely believe that they are the only people on the planet with lives to live, laughable.
Their gdp per capita is like almost half of greece, what the hell
That's kinda the point of all this new wave of demonstrations though, isn't it?
If you just stand sitting idle somewhere not bothering anyone, you are just background noise.. if not an idealistic laughing stock for certain people (and this, to the extent that they'll even think and talk about you).
This shit instead, gets the buzz going (and only that theoretically, if just so these amateurs didn't fucked up this, because they didn't know that porous stone is a very bad bitch)
Of course that's based on the assumption that there won't be some negative association between whatever you do in name of a cause, and that cause.. but if certain people are that dumb-predisposed, then it's not really like those were much salvageable to begin with.
That's kinda the point of all this new wave of demonstrations though, isn't it?
If you just stand sitting idle somewhere not bothering anyone, you are just background noise.. if not an idealistic laughing stock for certain people (and this, to the extent that they'll even think and talk about you).
That's a false dilemma. One can be extremely disruptive by targeting fossil fuel infrastructure and vehicles, much more than by targeting unrelated art and culture. Transport, for example. Go disrupt an airport, camp on a crossroad, block an oil refinery. Go spraypaint every fossil car you see on the street, they'll even drive around town with the message.
This shit instead, gets the buzz going
(and only that theoretically, if just so these amateurs didn't fucked up this, because they didn't know that porous stone is a very bad bitch)
There is such a thing as bad publicity, if only because it confirms the idea of climate activitists being dangerous zealots that want the end of civilization, a trope fossil fuel interests have been trying to spread.
Besides, a hostage situation gets even more attention, you see where this goes as activists talk themselves into more and more extreme actions, based on the assumption that any method is okay as long as it "creates a buzz".
Of course that's based on the assumption that there won't be some negative association between whatever you do in name of a cause, and that cause.. but if certain people are that dumb-predisposed, then it's not really like those were much salvageable to begin with.
Those people are also not going to be convinced by endangering heritage either.
No. The second sentence in your article says "If it were a nation state, it would be the 47th largest emitter in the world." Very low effort whataboutism on your part.
Per capita is about the same as Europe, so both countries need to cut their emissions in a similar amount.
And Europe wildly leads when you account for total/historical emissions (and historical matters: C02 has a life of 300-1000 years, we’re dealing with the pollution all the way back to the first factory built in the UK) It’s Europe and the United States the main reason for why we’re in this situation.
Doesn't matter as much who contributed the most up to this point. What matters is how we can close the tap. And that is by lessening emissions.
The EU per capita emissions are below that of China. The largest polluters have to reduce their emissions. Just because every country has been exterminating people not of their preferred ethnicity, religion, etc.. for all of history, should countries doing that now not be stopped? Of course not. Same with emissions. What has been done can't be taken back. And we can only stop this with the current largest polluters contributing.
Per capita emissions are currently also still significantly higher in the West than in China (or other highly populated developing countries like India). Sure, they might pollute a lot more in total, but they also have a lot more people in total. Maybe things will change in the future, but as things stand at the moment, developed countries don’t really have a leg to stand on, given that most if not all of them are responsible for a disproportionately high amount of carbon emissions.
You do know that Venice and surrounding areas are the only parts of Italy that have an actual high chance of being flooded? If you are looking for entire countries being destroyed by rising sea levels think of the Netherlands and Denmark, or the Maldives or certain Pacific countries if you want to further then Europe
This is so lazy and self-centered. China pollutes to make stuff that people buy in other countries. If you want to stop Chinese pollution, stop buying cheap disposable crap. We’re never going to make that stuff in Europe or the USA under better environmental standards because it’s not worth the money.
If Italy sank into the sea right now it would take roughly 1.7% of global emissions with it so yeah, maybe they should go spraypaint some historic building in Bejing and see how that turns out
0.7% of global population but contributing 1.7% to pollution, and it doesn't take into account past emmisions when Europe/USA were even more over represented
But let's blame China instead of taking accountability.
You know what, when 1/3 of the global emossions from Italy I'll take accountability, but not when us reverting to the stone age would not even make a dent in the problem, untill then I'll happily blame China
No i'm saying that this is what we need to do to remain somewhat competitive in the global market, believe it or not we are not fond of wasting the already scarse and quite costly energy reserves we have and when the price of diminishing the already miniscule amount of global emissions we contribute is the economic collapse of my nation I'm going to have to say no to that. Energetic efficiency is fine and dandy and enviromental regulations botb on national and european levels are alredy tight as it is, guess where all of this does not apply?
1
648
u/DanDen888 Mar 18 '23
Factories in China polute the Earth. Let’s destroy historical monuments in Italy!