I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?

by not wasting time talking about things that are unrelated. If you're bleeding you first stop the flow, not try to find how to create steel skin. By focusing so much on abstract concepts and your liberal view of history, you're avoiding talking about this specific issue. Funnily enough though you still insist in pretending you're interested in it at all.

Where is this evidence again?

here. And here. Also all the other ones. "what evidence???".

Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce.

Look at this ~~photo~~ fucking graph. Now this one. One is up by like 6 times while the other one is almost a 100, so they're not proportional. "where's evidence?"

Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?

Bacteria, famous for having governments, research institutions and social organisations. They also have opinions on the concept of private property and knowledge of their limited resources.

unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.

Wait you don't? Then disprove it, please, since it's so easy.

First, I will laugh at the association of “China” with “anti-imperialist country”.

When was the last China-backed regime change? Then compare it with the last talks of doing a regime change in China itself. And then look into all the partnerships that China has through the BRICS and show how they were actually imperialist all along. Take your time.

Finally some data besides wikipedia I guess

First link with USA added, second link is broken but I fixed it and also doesn't say that they've "installed more coal than renewable" and in fact contradicts the notion of them developing thermal more than renewable.

The country generated 56.2% of its electricity using fossil fuels last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, down from 63% in 2021. China's "ultralow emission, coal-fired capacity" reached 1,050 GWs, and its renewable energy capacity amounted to 1,200 GW -- nearly doubling capacity from five years earlier.

Third one I have no idea how you got "median" of the mix out of it or what you mean by that. It's even per capita. Change from relative to absolute and click the "play button and you'll see how quickly China has caught up on green energy production within just the last 20 years while the others stagnated. Also note how much energy Europe and the USA consume per capita compared to the world median.

Fourth one at least is interesting, but I think the tragedy here is how a rapidly developing country under a trade war is being blamed for not having access to the resources it needs to develop further. It sure would be lovely if the Capitalist developed countries exported their technology to help China develop its green energy further, but instead they have been blocking critical tech exports there. I guess we need to ignore that because it's political.

Either way, it's also very important to be careful when jumping between different metrics such as total, per capita and per KWh. Trying to consider all of those in a black or white manner will lead you to awkward and subtle mistakes and syllogisms. Here's a very well researched article that goes in depth on how the CPC is leading the way into actually producing more carbon-efficient energy. This twitter thread also has a lot of reading material on how China has been on a gigantic green energy growth spurt for the last 30 years both in internal production and also in importing infrastructure. Solar, Wind, Hydro. All those sources are political and not made by the IPCC, so be careful there.

It's okay to think they're not doing enough, but to pretend that the EU (which is very dependent on their polluter friend the USA) is somehow beating them at this despite their very minor improvements over the past 20 years is just disingenuous. If you remember energy production 20 years ago you'll notice that it has barely changed in capitalist countries, while anti-capitalist countries really care about it. This comes from the intuitive fact that the power serves the common proletarian, who are the most affected by climate change, rather than the stockholders.

This was actually the point of the discussion, and I'm happy you finally addressed it so I could rectify it. Now reply to me by ignoring all the listed sources, while moving the discussion to other nonsense abstract notions of bacteria and ancient civilisation, like you seem to enjoy doing.