[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

A lot of countries do not like China. India and China have regulare border fights that alone is massive, the EU does not like China too much either(Ukraine being a big part of that), Indonesia has just hit China with 200% on textiles, Mexico, Brazil and Chile have added anti dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, Thailand is looking into Chinese dumping as well. There also are border conflicts with the seven dash line with most nearby countries like Vietnam, Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia.

BRICS is a group of countries, who do not like the US. That however does not mean they like China. That is why you hear the term multipolar world order a lot from those countries. As in no country should rule the world.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

For a few months.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 days ago

The EU is a massive car exporter and the car industry in Europe is not doing that great right now. That is due to European companies producing EVs in China and then bringing them into the EU. So the EU trying to force them to keep car factories open is just logical. Hence the probe and the targetted tariffs, based on the subsidies they recieve from the Chinese government.

Also, the tarrifs I’m complaining about aren’t Carbon-related, nor imposed by China(where on earth did you even get that absurd idea?), but they would stack in an awful manner.

The article you post under is literally called: "China Confronts Europe Over Climate-Based Trade Restrictions". Also I have no idea, where I wrote anything about China imposing tariffs. Just that those are not fixed, but flexible based on certain criteria.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

A lot of high income countries did not have their industrial revolution less then a century ago. That was a bit post WW1, so it was mainly Western Europe besides the Iberian peninsula, US, Canada and Australia, which were industrialized a century ago. Japan did really start to grow in 1960, as did Spain and Italy. South Korea went up in the 1980s. Many already have had peak per capita emissions some time ago. Then you have problems like South Africa and Russia, which both have high emissions, but are not that rich. Russias per capita emissions are above those of the EU since 1951 for example. Time is also a problem, as in countries have falling emissions and others have increased, so that needs to be included. Also technology changed. Things like solar, wind turbines, electric cars, even electric trains, nuclear power plants and so forth are well developed technologies today. That was not the case a century ago. Besides that global climate change and knowledge of human impacts of it, are relativly recent, it only started being a somewhat discussed political point in the 70s.

Point is, that it is complex and there honestly should be a formular to determine each countries contribution and that should include new emissions. Depending on how it is calculated that can absolutly include China.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

Usually those artist did get some recognition during their life, but never got into the main stream. That changed due to the main stream changing and the people who did like the art showing it again. That is actually rather easy to do with something like the Fediverse. It just requires a download option. Especially when everybody is aware, that the content will be deleted, that would be a decent option.

Also a lot of content on social media in general is very short term. Stuff like politcal discussions are fairly useless after a few months in most cases. So that can be deleted without much care and again, if somebody wants to preserve it, they easily can just download it.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

It really does not matter too much to the planet, if products consumed in the EU produce emissions in China or the EU. However the EU has well working emission trading sytem, which in the coming years, will make carbon intensive manufacturing all but impossible in the EU. That becomes useless, if companies just end up producing in China instead, using old fossil fuel based factories. So having a carbon tariff is a great option. If China indeed cares about the planet, then they can produce in a sustainable fashion and export with no carbon tariff to the EU. Also the from the EU carbon tariff is lowered by the cost of carbon in the producing country. So China can just increase their carbon price to meet the EU level.

If China goes green, then the carbon tariff is zero. If Chinas carbon price is as high or higher then the EUs, then the carbon tariff is zero.

As for cars there is the option for manufacturers to show how high Chinese subsidies are. If they do not get subsidies, then they do not have to pay tariffs. Btw the EU has a fossil fuel car phase out date in law, unlike China.

China is the biggest emitter in the world. If they do not lower their emissions, which this clearly shows they have no intresst in doing, then we are all fucked.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

The US spends 3.4% of GDP in defence. Israel is at 5.3%. Also the US only spends a bit more then 3x what China spends and well US products are more expensive. So the US can probably fund its military for quite some time, without too many problems and right wingers love to do it, to bomb the shit out of people.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 89 points 1 month ago

$7trillion is three times the GDP if Brazil. It is bigger then the US federal budget. Seriously it is insane.

37
submitted 3 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
48
submitted 4 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
87
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
30
submitted 4 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net
[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 136 points 4 months ago

Funny thing something like that happened to the account:

305
submitted 4 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
653
Wind turbine vs mine (pbs.twimg.com)
submitted 4 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
1
submitted 4 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/technology@slrpnk.net
810
Libertarians be like (eupolicy.social)
submitted 5 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net

Headline: Libertarians be like Picture of disugested women next to "Tyranny.gov" Picture of intressted women next to "Tyranny.com"

138
submitted 5 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
16
submitted 5 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Translation from German:

Energy consumption in Germany fell sharply in the first three months of the current year compared to the same period last year. With the exception of the continuously growing population and this year's leap day on 29 February, all influencing factors had the effect of reducing consumption. This applies to the overall subdued macroeconomic development, the mild weather conditions and the high level of energy prices, including the increased costs for CO₂ emissions as part of the national emissions trading scheme for fossil fuels.

According to preliminary calculations by the Working Group on Energy Balances (AG Energiebilanzen), domestic primary energy consumption reached 3,030 petajoules (PJ) or 103.4 million tonnes of coal equivalent (mtce) in the first quarter of 2024. This was 4.6 per cent less than in the same quarter of the previous year.

The consumption of mineral oil fell by 2.8 per cent in the first three months of the current year. While the consumption of petrol fell by around 4.4 per cent and diesel fuel even declined by almost 9 per cent, sales of aviation fuel increased by almost 11 per cent. The supply of crude petrol to the chemical industry fell by more than 4 per cent. By contrast, sales of light heating oil rose by just over 4 per cent as many consumers increased their stocks.

Natural gas consumption recorded a slight increase of 1.2 per cent in the first quarter of the current year, which is largely due to increased consumption as a result of this year's leap day. More natural gas was used in electricity generation in particular. In contrast, the mild weather caused demand for natural gas for heating purposes to fall. In industry, the use of natural gas declined against the backdrop of the production trend. In contrast, there was a slightly positive trend in the trade, commerce and services sector and in district heating generation.

Hard coal consumption fell by more than 20 per cent overall in the first three months. The use of hard coal in power plants to generate electricity fell by more than 40% as a result of an overall decline in electricity generation, increased electricity production from renewable energies and higher electricity purchases from neighbouring countries. Sales to the iron and steel industry increased by just under 4 per cent due to the rise in pig iron production.

Lignite consumption fell by almost a fifth. The decline in production (minus 17.3 per cent) largely corresponded to the development of deliveries to the public utility power plants, which purchase more than 90 per cent of domestic lignite production. Electricity generation from lignite fell by 18.5 per cent in the first quarter of the current year.

The final decommissioning of the last three nuclear power plant units (Neckarwestheim 2, Emsland and Isar 2) on 15 April 2023 means that nuclear energy will no longer contribute to the domestic energy supply.

In the first quarter of 2024, 0.5 billion kWh (1.6 PJ) more electricity was exported abroad than flowed back to Germany. In the same period of the previous year, the export surplus was 9.5 billion kWh (34.3 PJ). So far this year, more electricity has been purchased from France and Belgium than has been supplied. In addition, the export surpluses with Switzerland and Austria have decreased significantly.

The contribution of renewable energies in the first quarter of 2024 was 2.9 per cent higher overall than in the same period of the previous year. This development is due in particular to an increase in electricity production from hydropower, photovoltaics and, above all, wind energy. The use of renewable energies in heat generation declined due to weather conditions.

The clearly recognisable changes in the structure of energy consumption, in particular the further decline in the use of coal, are likely to have led to a reduction in CO₂ emissions of around 6.6% or 12 million tonnes (mt), according to estimates by AG Energiebilanzen. Decline in energy consumption primarily affects coal Development of primary energy consumption 1st quarter 2024 Changes in per cent - Total 3,030 PJ or 103.4 million tce

509
submitted 5 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
114
submitted 6 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 102 points 9 months ago

And that is why GDP is such a badly flawed metric and why we should not use it as the one and only way to measure progress.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 80 points 1 year ago

To sum it up. The inital thought was that the bill would be a public investment of $385 billion in renewables, but it seems it will be more in the line of $1.2 trillion, so about three times more money. Certainly a big change and extremly good news.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

MrMakabar

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF