356
submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net -1 points 3 weeks ago

A big portion of every country is rural, you're not making the case you think you're making.

Let's look at other differences: China is still largely a manufacturing economy whereas the United States is a service economy.

They've built more rail transit in recent years than the United States has even attempted.

Their EV market share is significantly higher.

Seems the only thing you learned in school is blind nationalism

[-] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

A big portion of every country is rural

no, big portion of every country is not rural.

also note we are not talking about rural in a sense of geography. we are talking about rural in a sense of what we in europe or us would call living in a medieval conditions.

for example, there is 231 registered cars in china compared to 850 in us.

in 2000, 57% of chinese had access to clean drinking water and toilet. by 2020 that number rose to respectable 92%.

now when these people finally have access to toilet, they will want a car and maybe a roof over their head that is made out of concrete instead of bamboo.

lets see how it will affect their emissions per capita.

China is still largely a manufacturing economy

and will be for some time, before their citizens will get to western living standard, by which time their emissions will be somewhere else than they are today.

They’ve built more rail transit in recent years than the United States has even attempted.

well, united states have 1 km of railways per 1522 people, compared to chinese 8865, so it is easy to see why one of them may be in bigger rush to build more.

here is kinda interesting and unfortunate that according to table historical peek for us was 400k km of tracks in 1917, which is about 100% more than they have now, so, probably thanks to the car culture, they let lot of them rot.

Their EV market share is significantly higher.

yes, they do better here. it is the nature of the beast, if country has almost no cars and is getting richer, it is only logical that some of the new cars will be electrical, compared to country where people already have a car and often not so much disposable income to buy new car when the old one is still working, plus there is of course some inertia.

it is 38% / 23% / 9.5% market share of newly bought cars for china/eu/us.

that also means that 62% of cars sold in china is not electric. and 72% of electricity for these ev cars comes from non-renewable sources.

they are missing about 900 million cars to get to same car penetration as us. so lets wait until they get there and see what it does with their emissions 😂

Seems the only thing you learned in school is blind nationalism

of course. because why else would someone disagree with your genius? i am not an american, as you probably think, you clown.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 weeks ago

Your thesis is that eventually Chinese will live extravagant lifestyles like the US and all own similar amounts of gas cars per household because that's how the US developed.

Never mind that China is actively electrifying and building incredible amounts of public transit so it's more likely their economy will scale in a green way as people live more urban lifestyles, closer to what you'd see in Europe and even beyond that due to electric rail and population density.

Yes if China was like 2 billion Americans you'd have a point I guess.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes if China was like 2 billion Americans you’d have a point I guess.

if chinese were significantly different from any other people anywhere in history of the world, you might have a point. it is about as likely as kamala winning the race now.

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
356 points (98.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5316 readers
286 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS