168
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

If it wasn’t per capita, we’d just be looking at population size graphs

I duno about that, largest countries in the world including EU:

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1998..2024&country=CHN%7EUSA%7EIND%7EEuropean+Union+%2828%29%7EIDN%7EPAK%7ENGA&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Territorial&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+country

Some of chinas emissions are really other countries emissions, offshored for China to produce. China profits from it, of course.

Agreed, I've complained about Europes false green economy when it outsources manufacturing to China, including but not limited to

China was by far the largest supplier of solar panels, accounting for 98% of all imports

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251009-2

For a population as large as Europe it's disappointing their aren't more battery and solar panel manufacturers

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

The problem is that EU can't compete on price. However, as they are long term it is not as much of a risk to install foreign technology that is not necessary to internet connect.

The EU is reducing, which is why per capits is important. We can see what is possible. Clearly the USA is not doing well. China has made huge inroads in green energy and I think it's a combination of wanting to be at the forefront of new technology and a need for energy security.

As it stands, china is about triple the EU, while manufacturing for them. The USA is just burning carbon for no reason as they no longer manufacture. This will worsen until ai bubble pops. They have quite a bit of nuclear power though. Their oil based economy is just too ingrained. Similar to Saudi Arabia. Why bother reducing when oil is cheap.

I fully expect tariffs in carbon pricing to be the next trade tariff globally. Whyake the hard cuts that cost.more on your internal market when the competition does it cheaper and doesn't care about environmental effects. It forces incentives to do the right thing and prevents the externalization of costs.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

There is a massive issue with adjusting for trade though. If you just imagine a country lets call it Green, which has no emissions, and a another country Black, which is fully run on dirty fossil fuels. Now when both countries trade, the Green country imports emissions and the Black ones are lowered. It can be that dirty processes have been outsourced to the Black country or you can just have the Green country do things better.

When you take the EU and China you can see both. There are absolutely dirty processes outsourced to China, but at the same time things like electricity are dirtier in China then in the EU.

[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Now when both countries trade, the Green country imports emissions and the Black ones are lowered

Yeah I'm saying it's the opposite, the green country is outsourcing dirty work to the dirty country

I didn't downvote you btw

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I’m saying it’s the opposite, the green country is outsourcing dirty work to the dirty country

Then the Green countries emissions increase for any import from the Black country, when you adjust for trade. The issue is that it is any import and not just dirty outsourced ones.

Say the Green country sells a 1000 chairs to the Black one and the Black country also sells a 1000 chairs to the Green one. Then you still have an increase in emissions, when you adjust for trade, in the Green country and falling emissions in the Black one. I certainly would not call that outsourcing emissions, as both countries could have just kept their chairs. This sort of trade happens all the time in the real world. You for example can buy German cars in Japan and Japanese cars in Germany.

This is how a net goods exporter like the EU, can have an increase in trade adjusted emissions.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
168 points (94.7% liked)

Climate

8570 readers
896 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS