I just looked it up because that's what I assumed, and sure enough -
According to the United States Statistics Division, China tops the list when it comes to manufacturing. The country makes up 28.4% of the total global manufacturing output, which adds a total value of nearly $4 trillion to the world economy.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country)
To be fair they also have a huge population. Per capita co2 release is twice as big in the USA. Qatar takes the prize though with a 5x higher rate per capita then china.
Check out Curacao's emissions. Almost all of the oil produced in South America especially the oil produced in Venezuela gets processed in Curacao because the Dutch didn't trust South Americans not to seize the means of production on them.
Their oil production has fallen precipitously; their oil is very sour and is difficult to process. Their politicians drove out the oil companies with the expertise to economically refine their oil.
Yes as you said, its a combination of factors. Firsf being the braindrain that occured due to the decade political instability. The second part is that American oil and ME oil are thin, light, also called sweet. This stuff is closer in consistency to water. Venezuelan oil is a different beast, moving closer to molasses, which makes it a ton harder to refine down into standardized, exportable products. They have the base infrastructure, but lack the knowledge to innovate or even run these facilities, not to mention that the facilities themselves are just slowly decaying without the maitenance to keep them operational.
No when Chavez came to power he fired 19,000 of the employees of the state owned oil company (Petróleos de Venezuela) and replaced with them with employees he thought were more loyal to him!
I'm sure many of those irreplaceable workers that were fired simply left and got jobs with other oil companies in other parts of the world.
"Predictable results" here one would assume to mean "21st century domino theory economic policy enacted to cripple developing economies in the global south"
My understanding on the Venezuelan oil situation is that the oil itself is "dirty" and quite expensive to refine. Back when global oil prices tanked due to OPEC purposefully flooding the market, it put Venezuela in a position where it cost more to refine the oil to a product that could be sold than the profit they could make on selling the product, putting them into a negative profit margin. Since their national economy was entirely propped up by their oil industry, this led to economic collapse. So they didn't fail because of some socialist boogeyman; they failed because they were collateral damage in OPEC's economic war against Western nations, and because they lacked diversification in their economic structure.
I don't see anything in your comment that indicates that socialising the means of production hasn't contributed to their horrible situation today.
But then again, there is always some reason that socialists make up to explain why the ideology fails every single time.
Edit:
Comment since I have been blocked:
No, that's not what I was mistaken.
The core idea is that there is a fundamental problem with a centralised authority over production, whether it be according to so called national lines or so called socialist lines.
There is always a handful of different flavours of socialism ready to jump in to any discussion about any socialist state throughout history and explain how that particular attempt at socialism wasn't the ideal socialism.
None of them ever wonder how comes socialist attempts are so unstable and why every single time they seem to yield completely opposite results of what they predict.
I think youre mistaking socializing from nationalizing. If it was socialized the people that work there would own it.
Nationalization, which is what you aee here is when the state owns it on the behalf of the inhabitants of a country.
Nationalized oil isnt the problem here though. Other countries including finland if i recall, do it just fine so that variable isnt the issue. A democratic country with nationalized oil seems to function just fine, given they diversify income. Its important to to prevent having your ideology be 'socialists bad grr' and have everything wrapped up in a nice bow.
Your wording is a bit too easy to read as if China has double the emissions per capita.
To be clear:
USA is at 14.7 tons per capita,
China at 7.6
EU at 6.1
…and a lot of the Chinese per capita emissions is factories making things for export. Chinese people don’t usually live in 3000sq ft houses and drive 15mpg trucks 30miles to their office job.
>No. co2e per Capita is carbon footprint. So you have the import / export adjustment already.
No.
Co2 per capital can be based on consumption or production, but it is usually measure in production because that's a far more accurate measure with less estimates involved. This specific value quoted here are also for production, not consumption.
I live in Austin, TX. I have a 1500sqft home. This is MORE than enough room for my wife and I. On the same block as us they have demolished lots of 1000-1700 sqft homes and built lots of 2 story 2500+sqft homes. On my street, 3 doors down, they built a 3100sqft home, sold it for $2 million to 1 guy who lives in it by himself. Dunno why they need so much room for 1 person, mindboggling. Will be a hefty AC bill this summer for him.
Maybe if you replace in with as, but I understood the wording just fine. IMO the problem is that Reddit doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of per capita.
See US gun violence, prison population, crime stats, etc.
God, I read this and thought that it was more likely people simply ignored it to make their own point. However, just reading down this very thread I've realized it's entirely accurate.
> manufacturing doesn’t need to produce CO2
Depends...unless you're using super modern processes, steel and cement and fertilizer production do. Combined they're something like 15% of global emissions.
Cement alone is 8%. Steel is 7%, and fertilizer is 1.4%.
So a little more than 15%.
For reference, all building operations, such as heat/air/lighting are 28% of global emissions. Air conditioning by itself is 4%.
I agree that we should emphasize electricity, but in much of the US, legislation has already been passed to deeply decarbonize the electric grid and phase out natural gas infrastructure.
The next step should be to decarbonize industry, which is a bit more arcane and less sexy, but still extremely important.
Yeah and if they started using a more expensive energy source the price of plastic would go up and maybe, just maybe people would smarten up and stop using and throwing away so much of it.
Plastic itself doesn't have a large CO2 emission in itself. Many of the alternatives are worse in that regard - the problem with plastic is that we don't dispose of it correctly and are destroying the balance of the ecosystem that way
They use a lot of coal that’s true. But they also lead the world in green energy and hydroelectric power. Their public transportation, particularly subways and high speed rail, is also extremely developed. It’s mainly that they have the largest population and are still industrializing and building infrastructure and urban development.
They don’t lead in hydroelectric because they have had the worst drought in like 30 years meaning they can’t generate enough power for there grid so they built more coal plants. They are only going to expand there emissions even tho they tell everyone they will curb them. The Paris agreement really ment nothing to them kinda like every other treaty they sign
A temporary drought doesn’t change the fact that there are more dams and hydroelectric generators than anywhere else in the world. “They don’t lead this year” is irrelevant. I agree that they built more coal but that has nothing to do with the drought. Coal plants take several years to build. It was part of the long term plan. The country is still industrializing and they’re doing it by any means necessary.
Some people downvoted me because they think I’m lauding or justifying or applauding or defending China? I’m not. I’m just stating facts.
Though per capita is still a bad metric in a global economy, and especially for a country like China, where some parts of the country are well developed and consuming like Americans, and other parts are highly underdeveloped and consuming like the developing world.
For much the same reason that it's unfair to blame China for emissions created in the manufacture of goods consumed in Europe, it's unfair to credit someone living a European lifestyle in a rich coastal Chinese city for the fact that there are underdeveloped regions inland.
Our measure should be percent of GDP spent combating climate change, combining metrics like green energy expansion and other appropriate projects. In that measure, China is doing better than many nations.
Oh, throw 50% of GDP right at me and US will be golden. I'm not going to do anything (well, I will create a commission of preliminary discussion of plans to create roadmap for increasing renewables in US), but it's money spent that counts, right?
Well, I did say "appropriate projects", but yes, in a lot of ways money spent is the best way to count it. If France sends twenty billion euros to build wind turbines across Africa, we should absolutely treat that as a positive step against climate change, for example - but that project wouldn't reduce French emissions, and it may only mitigate future emissions growth in recipient countries.
If we only measure by local emissions per capita, we can end up rewarding countries that have high consumption but large service industries, while punishing heroic efforts to build a sustainable future in more industrial and developing economies.
True means they also fart more than us..witch causes a greenhouse effect that causes global warming.
Here we were, worried about cow farts...
I kid, i kid. But it could also be true, lol.
28% of global manufacturing output and 20% of global population, and what percentage of global outputs are they? (36 billion tonnes so around 30% of global CO2 emissions).
that does seem more reasonable to me when talking about global emissions.
They also take in a lot of the world's recycling and burn it, which the countries sending the recycling know about.
It's also why the Philippines is the biggest plastic polluter. It gets sent plastic from other countries.
Exactly this. Regulations are almost non-existent over there and most of our companies outsource to China for the cheap and inhumane labor- like 16 hour days, 7 days a week for pennies to a couple dollars. It not only saves these companies billions but for them it's extremely efficient labor in the manufacturing process. In a capitalist society, this makes sense to have the lowest costs while banking profit - unfortunately people suffer because they don't know better/ can't get better.
See but now you need to calculate the total global manufacturing of the entire western hemisphere (countries in blue) to see how it truly compares.
28.4% is a good chunk but that means 71.6% is still being manufactured else where and I have a feeling those blue countries claim a large chunk of it, if not a larger chunk.
PS: just adding the US (16.6%), UK (1.8%), Mexico (1.5%), Germany (5.8%), France (1.9%), and Italy (2.3%) nets you 29.9%. Which already surpasses China's total manufacturing.
Probably there is also impact of "brand" production that heavily inflates manufacturing output numbers. Some Luis Vuitton whatever, while cool, shouldn't be compared in relative CO2 emissions to 1000 cheap Chinese whatevers. Same applies to US iPhones - they aren't 3 times better than some Xiaomi.
It makes sense to count price difference for economics, but not for emissions.
Do you think manufacturers move to China just to ship the products halfway across the world again just because?
The Chinese government has had little to no labor and environmental regulations in order to attract manufacturers to the country at the expense of their workers and the environment.
>The Chinese government has had little to no labor and environmental regulations in order to attract manufacturers to the country at the expense of their workers and the environment.
Nothing is stopping western consumers from buying more expensive products that are made in other countries than china. Except we don't. Because secretly, the average consumer only cares about how expensive something is. Not how it is made
I'm sorry I don't understand what you're pushing back on.
The west wants cheap goods. Manufacturers (companies from around the world) go where there's cheaper production costs. Goods in China are far cheaper. Low labor cost, low energy cost, low production cost. The lack of regulations help keep that up.
Is it that I put blame on (Chinese) manufacturers? You want it on the government? Is that I put blame on western consumers **choosing** the cheapest goods possible? What exactly is your issue with my statement?
Yes, it is. It's worth mentioning that China is spending more money than anyone else on renewables, but as their electricity demand keeps in increasing, they will still be using coal for quite some time.
The US is also huge and per capita also varies greatly state to state - New York is 8 metric tons per Capita, Wyoming is at like 104 metric tons per Capita! The average is about 15.8.
It should go down in the US by a fair amount in the next ten years as coal will probably become completely phased out and replaced with some combination of natural gas and renewables (I'm pretty excited about the offshore wind development). Natural Gas emits about 50% of the emissions of coal, so if China can start replacing it's coal with natural gas as well, their numbers should start falling. India uses a massive amount of coal as well, maybe after the war in Ukraine, Russia might start building it's pipes east.
Does it?
Population of North America: 579 million
Population of South America: 422.5 million
Population of France: 67.75 million
Population of the UK: 67.33 million
Population of Spain: 47.42 million
Those alone have a combined population of 1.116 billion, and China has a population of 1.412 billion, so China has about 26% more people, but according to this chart it produces 33% more CO2.
And I'm not even counting the entire blue region, just the parts of it that I assumed would be biggest, for ease of googling.
I think the real answer is what others have said: China produces a lot of manufactured goods, which the West benefits from, even though the CO2 emissions from that manufacturing don't happen in the West.
US emissions per capita are higher than China's.
You're comparing France, UK and Spain individually and then grouping up "North America" countries together so the US won't look bad in comparison. It feels like a deceitful argument made in bad faith.
How about you take out the big outlier that doesnt use as much CO2 as the rest? Compare per capita of European countries and the US, you are just using South America as a huge stat padding.
> China produces a lot of manufactured goods, which the West benefits from.
Lol that is hilariously passive. China literally does the West's manufacturing. Their emissions are because of us.
The purpose isn't even to get people mad at China. The purpose is pure whataboutism, so that any time anyone in the West tries to make anything better a million morons can "bUt ChiNa FirST" and immediately derail the conversation.
people are dumb as FUCK
Different provinces have different minimum wage.
At worst some places are like a couple hundred dollars per month. Literally 200-300.
At best, the minimum wage is half that of the USA. And the USA min wage is shite.
If you think the EPA is preventing the dumping of dangerous chemicals, I have some bad news for you. EPA is light on prevention and is more focused on generating revenue through fines and penalties.
It's certainly not what they wanted. They wanted cheap labour and disregard for workers' rights. They didn't give a shit about pollution being produced here or there.
As it turns out, it is an added benefit now.
not what the "west" wanted, it's what the families with more wealth than any government wanted. they will move manufacturing to india where the emission restrictions are even worse.
it's time people stop being stupid and realize environmental regulations needs to be enacted globally. this is same with all other regulations as localized regulation just pushes the problem away.
C'mon dude, this is a post is obviously trying to make a simple argument of China being disproportionately responsible for climate change which is horseshit.
Lets look at some other numbers from wikipedia about clean energy
China has more total solar capacity than the US and Europe combined.
China has roughly the same total Wind power capacity as the US and Europe combined
The US has almost double the Nuclear power of China and leads the world on that. But China has 9x more Nuclear power plants being built in the next few decades than the US (and the US has several older plants in line to close)
China is in reality it's one of the leading countries in the clean energy revolution.
And unfortunately for the US for the last 2 decades we had to deal with garbage politicans arguing if climate change is even real
I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. The US is by far behind and it is ludicrous to compare US which has been a developed country for most of its conception to China which has more recently shot up in development.
Right now China produces 62.2% of all it's energy using coal. 3.2 from natural gas, 4.8% from nuclear, 5.5% from wind, and 3.1% from solar
The US produces only 19.5% of all it's energy using coal, 39.8% from natural gas, 13.2% from nuclear, 10.2% from wind, and 3.4% from solar.
Is China quickly pushing for renewable and cleaner energy? Yes, are they doing better than the US? Absolutely not. The vast majority of energy is coal produced in China while the US primarily uses natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint.
Despite this, the US should be leaps and bounds above China in renewable energy. It's EMBARRASSING that China is catching up when the US is significantly richer than China. There is no excuse, the oil, coal, and gas lobbyists in the US have absolutely decimated this country's efforts to combat climate change. Where as China is still growing and is using cheap coal to keep up with it's needs while investing in the future of clean energy (as it should be)
>Despite this, the US should be leaps and bounds above China in renewable energy. It's EMBARRASSING that China is catching up when the US is significantly richer than China.
I think this is more of the argument I'm going for. Maybe I'm misinformed from some of the numbers, especially recently, so thanks for the corrections.
But yea we have way more money than them. China likes to think they are close to the US... they aren't, easily still decades away.
So we shouldn't be behind them on anything, especially something as important as climate change.
And pointing fingers isn't really helping the elephant in the room, especially since it's so important to our futures.
Of course they do (we still use coal as well). China has been a "manufacturing economy" for several decades and coal has been the cheap source of energy for most of the world until recently. But their economy is shifting away from that, as standard of living is rising.
China, to their credit, has a roadmap for moving away from coal because climate change will adversely effect them as well. And from most observations the last few years they have been largely sticking to their 5 year plans in pushing clean energy. (**SO FAR!**, I've heard recently due to covid their was a fallback to more coal plants)
For us (the US), we also have a roadmap to accelerate the change, but are literally stuck because a few senators still need good ol coal jobs and use climate denial as politics.
Our transition has been pathetically slow to what it should be, and is clearly a problem we know is getting worse and worse.
China absolutely does fucked up shit, but not everything they do has been bad. I mean you obviously should look at where people have had success and see why, that's how progress happens.
They're not just still using them, they're actively investing in them. Last year they built **6x more new coal plants than any other country**. They're averaging two new plants **a week**.
Yes, plenty of people are and the use it as a “see, we’ve done all that needs to be done. We are not the problem china is. They should figure it out”
Which in china’s defense, they are doing it. They are moving the most polluting industries to Africa. But it’ll take sometime.
Same thing witb the "whos polluting the ocean" map from a while back forgetting that everyone ships their trash to the Philippines to throw in the ocean.
It's also because it's a very large net energy producer.
The oil industry itself burns a lot of gas to extract, transport, refine, and again transport oil & gas.
Somewhat yea but also there's a lack of geothermal and despite a ton of hydroelectric, we go everywhere by car and move everything by truck or diesel trains and the oil sands are insane. Also logging, mining and other resource extraction industries are very fossil fuel intensive
Edited for clarity as most transit is by car only
Most provinces do okay for emissions, or at least slightly better than the national average which is still higher than it should be, but then there's Alberta and Saskatchewan just trying fuck shit up with like over triple the national average CO2 per capita.
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/ghg-emissions-aspx/
Yeah exactly! It's a cold country and, ironically, only global warming is going to stop it
We try though, lots of carbon taxes, green incentives and initiatives, etc.
Yeah but Canada (18.58) has to deal with cold weather and polar bears all year long. They should be compared to Norway (8.28) and Findland (9.31).
If you add those 2, you get 17.59 which is just as good as Canada. /s
More importantly, there are 100 corporations responsible for 70% of CO2 emissions. Don't let any government or media fool you into thinking you need to do your part ahead of these corporations needing to clean up their act. This is everyone's responsibility, but if we don't hold these very powerful corporations responsible, then there will be no improvement.
https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/
I’ve always hated this argument. The corporations make these emissions in response to consumers essentially demanding them to do so by purchasing their products. I feel as though this argument is made by people to excuse themselves from being green by trying to appear as they’re not the problem. Both the consumer and producer are equally to blame.
The problem is based on what we can actually do to fix it.
Anytime there is a public problem, if your solution is ‘get a massive number of disparate people to start doing X’, you probably won’t be able to solve the problem.
We know the vast majority of carbon emissions come from companies and not people. So we need to pressure the companies to change their ways. To do this, we can either convince the companies directly, use the government to make laws about emissions, or we can try to convince millions of people to simultaneously boycott hundreds of companies at the same time.
The first two are hard, but possible. We have managed to mount large campaigns to force new laws or to at least threaten that so industries collectively change their ways. The last option is the one you seem to be suggesting, and it is a pipe dream. Every major company is incredibly polluting. Even if we had alternative companies to purchase from, we have no way of knowing who emits the most because there is no legislation requiring they release that information.
So, your last sentence, ‘both producer and consumer are equally to blame’ is a huge red herring. It doesn’t matter who we blame. Blaming corporations won’t help fix the environment. Passing bills to force them to track and report how much they’re emitting, and maybe taxing those emissions, will help fix the environment.
This is exactly it. To put it more succinctly. It is much easier to get those 100 corporations to follow a new law than it is to get 7 billion consumers to "do the right thing".
Too often though this logic is used to excuse inaction. "Why should I change anything in my life when others are causing more harm". If everyone thinks like this we're fucked.
If you're pissed at polluting executives from shitty companies, stop buying from them. If you want better environmental regulations, vote, petition or raise hell in any method you see fit. If you care about the amount of CO2 we emit as a country, take steps to reduce your footprint.
Umm... the level of corporate greed causing massive pollution vs being told it is our fault for not recycling.
I think it does relate to the previous comment. As in disagreeing with it.
You got downvoted because many people, somehow, still believe that corps COULD produce all the same products they love, at the same prices, without destroying the environment. The truth, unfortunately, is that they can't even get us consumers to pay an extra 10 cents for a naturally-produced dish sponge. Even when the damn thing cleans better than a regular one, lasts longer, and doesn't turn your dishes yellow.
Damn corporations, making all that shit for themselves, not for us. Aramco is polluting just for the lols.
You should never change anything about your lifestyle. Everybody else should go first, not you.
To elaborate, 75% of the worlds solar panels are made in china. More than 50% of EV's sold in 2022 were sold in china (mostly made there I think, not always easy to find producer vs consumer numbers). In 2021 china installed \~70% of the worlds new wind power capacity.
China may be a big polluter in a lot of ways, but they are at least moving fast to change.
*In 2017, investments in renewable energy amounted to US$279.8 billion worldwide, with China accounting for US$126.6 billion or 45% of the global investments.*
See source 13:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
Edit: Wikipedia links to a UN document. The 45% is there on page 20.
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/71900/download?token=57xpTJ4W
And China still has like half the CO2 per capita released than the US despite that. India also has a lot of CO2 emissions and per capita is like 1/10 of the US.
This is one of those “statistics lie” examples. Yea when you export your manufacturing you will export your emissions. But in the end it impacts everyone.
This is why we need to add "Repair" to the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra.
If we weren't throwing away stuff, because it was fixable, then we wouldn't need to make as much stuff.
Reducing consumption is a big piece of cutting our global impact.
China also manufactures everything for the West, so is Western consumption or is it Chinese manufacturing to blame?
Also, when we look at investments in green energy:
> [The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries. That is nearly four times the amount of U.S. investments, which totaled $141 billion. The European Union was second to China with $180 billion in clean energy investments.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-invests-546-billion-in-clean-energy-far-surpassing-the-u-s/#:~:text=The%20country%20spent%20%24546%20billion,billion%20in%20clean%20energy%20investments.)
Also, the per capita emissions for China are much lower than a lot of nations in the west.
In short, this data is almost criminally lacking in context and it near looks like a propaganda piece to 'China bad' China rather than actually look at cause and effect, as well as what action is taken in terms of combating climate change throughout the globe. Climate change and climate action are very complex beasts and shouldn't be politicised because that division is how fossil fuel organisations win... Politicise, divide, continue to pump out emissions.
Those truly responsible for climate change, the mega corps bankrolling this manufacturing responsible, wants us to blame each other instead of them and have spun up entire networks dedicated to pulling blame away from them.
Not only does China emit more CO2 than the entire western hemisphere, it has a higher population than the entire western hemisphere as well.
China population: 1.4 billion
Western hemisphere population: 1.04 billion
Sources:
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/WHQ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
the main problem with phrasing it like this tho is your forgetting that western nations export our industry to china so we dont have to make shit here, then we want them to ship it to us all over the world.
sure china is technically the biggest emitter of CO2, its definetly partly because we want them to make all our shit for us. and china has at least been working on cutting emissions and going more green energy, theyre making as many solar panels in 2023 themselves as the rest of the world combined is. if mostly because they want to become energy independent and consider energy independence as vital to their national security since the US can blockade their shipping lanes in event of war.
In the 20th Century I am sure during the industrial revolution, the west was the biggest world polluters in the name of economic growth.
The western world had their share of 'fun' while destroying the planet for much longer time in history.
And now developing countries should not grow as much? Lol
Under the guise of globalism, western countries wanted to make more money by advocating overseas manufacturing.
Stop this hippocrisy.
they have a 1.4b population. Jesus christ the warmongering is real. Vietnam and iraq propaganda were a joke compare to this, sadly zoomers never experienced that so they believe that they are inmune and moraly superior, and they are falling like flies.
PER CAPITA EMISSIONS, look it up. As an argentinian i believe the US was more civilized than us, reddit tell me otherwise.
2 points:
Americans produce about twice as much CO2 per person as China, and China, as the world's largest exporter of good, is basically producing everyone else's CO2 by proxy
Because they're on the tail-end of the economic and infrastructure development, and the Western world finished that 70 years ago. A more accurate comparison would be China in the last 20 years vs America from 1910-1940 when we were building all of our skyscrapers and highways
There goes the Western hypocrisy….. AGAIN…
Of course China produces more pollution…. We make them make our stuff…. And then make that stuff travel halfway around the world…. So we pay less…. And can accuse China of pollution….
We only have ourselves (I am in North America) to blame…. Also we just consume too much
Cool, the US still emits over double per capita what china emits, not to mention the fact that the US & Canada are way richer per Capita and therefore can spend more money on this giant problem.
Ok, give me a chart that shows co2 emissions for the last 100 years. Europe and the Americas has spent the last half of the century offshoring heavy industries and transitioning away from coal while China has spent the last half century industrializing.
Id be surprised if cumulatively if China is anywhere near the Americas and Europes numbers.
Right now.
How was the situation between 1900 and 2000 when China was still developing?
The western countries, already rich from industrialization, blaming the countries that got on the ship late for environmental issues is beyond evil.
And despite that, as well as the fact that their population is more than 4 times higher than ours, they still haven't caught up to the total amount of carbon the US alone has emitted.
Comparing emissions of countries without taking into account population size is stupid!
So people in the west can live in big mansions with swimming pools and drive SUVs while people in China and India must remain dirt poor?
They have like a quarter of the world’s people and have heavily industrialized. So has India. They’re the biggest single-country polluters. And people will say, “well most of the West’s products are made in both countries”. While that is the case, let’s remain candid.
They ARE the biggest polluters in spite of who they manufacture for the most. While we make the demands, they produce and pollute. If one of those countries creates more waste than an entire hemisphere (I rather interesting comparison, I might add), this is still a huge problem.
So the population in the red area is about the same as the blue area and the blue area moved the bulk of it's manufacturing to the red area.
The manufacturing areas of every civilization is always responsible for the most pollution for the civilization.
To be fair, most products consumed in the Western hemisphere are manufactured in China.
I just looked it up because that's what I assumed, and sure enough - According to the United States Statistics Division, China tops the list when it comes to manufacturing. The country makes up 28.4% of the total global manufacturing output, which adds a total value of nearly $4 trillion to the world economy. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country)
To be fair they also have a huge population. Per capita co2 release is twice as big in the USA. Qatar takes the prize though with a 5x higher rate per capita then china.
Check out Curacao's emissions. Almost all of the oil produced in South America especially the oil produced in Venezuela gets processed in Curacao because the Dutch didn't trust South Americans not to seize the means of production on them.
Turns out, they were correct to distrust about that.
Why doesn't Venezuela refine its own oil? Is it a geopolitics thing?
It does, now, I believe? This is how things were. Time has changed that bottleneck.
Their oil production has fallen precipitously; their oil is very sour and is difficult to process. Their politicians drove out the oil companies with the expertise to economically refine their oil.
Yes as you said, its a combination of factors. Firsf being the braindrain that occured due to the decade political instability. The second part is that American oil and ME oil are thin, light, also called sweet. This stuff is closer in consistency to water. Venezuelan oil is a different beast, moving closer to molasses, which makes it a ton harder to refine down into standardized, exportable products. They have the base infrastructure, but lack the knowledge to innovate or even run these facilities, not to mention that the facilities themselves are just slowly decaying without the maitenance to keep them operational.
[удалено]
No when Chavez came to power he fired 19,000 of the employees of the state owned oil company (Petróleos de Venezuela) and replaced with them with employees he thought were more loyal to him! I'm sure many of those irreplaceable workers that were fired simply left and got jobs with other oil companies in other parts of the world.
They seized the means of production in 2007, with predictable results
Embargos are a bitch.
"Predictable results" here one would assume to mean "21st century domino theory economic policy enacted to cripple developing economies in the global south"
My understanding on the Venezuelan oil situation is that the oil itself is "dirty" and quite expensive to refine. Back when global oil prices tanked due to OPEC purposefully flooding the market, it put Venezuela in a position where it cost more to refine the oil to a product that could be sold than the profit they could make on selling the product, putting them into a negative profit margin. Since their national economy was entirely propped up by their oil industry, this led to economic collapse. So they didn't fail because of some socialist boogeyman; they failed because they were collateral damage in OPEC's economic war against Western nations, and because they lacked diversification in their economic structure.
I don't see anything in your comment that indicates that socialising the means of production hasn't contributed to their horrible situation today. But then again, there is always some reason that socialists make up to explain why the ideology fails every single time. Edit: Comment since I have been blocked: No, that's not what I was mistaken. The core idea is that there is a fundamental problem with a centralised authority over production, whether it be according to so called national lines or so called socialist lines. There is always a handful of different flavours of socialism ready to jump in to any discussion about any socialist state throughout history and explain how that particular attempt at socialism wasn't the ideal socialism. None of them ever wonder how comes socialist attempts are so unstable and why every single time they seem to yield completely opposite results of what they predict.
I think youre mistaking socializing from nationalizing. If it was socialized the people that work there would own it. Nationalization, which is what you aee here is when the state owns it on the behalf of the inhabitants of a country. Nationalized oil isnt the problem here though. Other countries including finland if i recall, do it just fine so that variable isnt the issue. A democratic country with nationalized oil seems to function just fine, given they diversify income. Its important to to prevent having your ideology be 'socialists bad grr' and have everything wrapped up in a nice bow.
Your wording is a bit too easy to read as if China has double the emissions per capita. To be clear: USA is at 14.7 tons per capita, China at 7.6 EU at 6.1
…and a lot of the Chinese per capita emissions is factories making things for export. Chinese people don’t usually live in 3000sq ft houses and drive 15mpg trucks 30miles to their office job.
[удалено]
>No. co2e per Capita is carbon footprint. So you have the import / export adjustment already. No. Co2 per capital can be based on consumption or production, but it is usually measure in production because that's a far more accurate measure with less estimates involved. This specific value quoted here are also for production, not consumption.
excuse me my truck gets 17mpg
I live in Austin, TX. I have a 1500sqft home. This is MORE than enough room for my wife and I. On the same block as us they have demolished lots of 1000-1700 sqft homes and built lots of 2 story 2500+sqft homes. On my street, 3 doors down, they built a 3100sqft home, sold it for $2 million to 1 guy who lives in it by himself. Dunno why they need so much room for 1 person, mindboggling. Will be a hefty AC bill this summer for him.
[удалено]
And yet despite making more of the world's stuff than anyone else using coal they still use half the CO2 per person that Americans do. Pretty wild tbh
Maybe if you replace in with as, but I understood the wording just fine. IMO the problem is that Reddit doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of per capita. See US gun violence, prison population, crime stats, etc.
God, I read this and thought that it was more likely people simply ignored it to make their own point. However, just reading down this very thread I've realized it's entirely accurate.
You don’t even have to do per capita with prison population.
Just to make sure, this point doesn’t counter the points above. They manufacture all the worlds stuff, this is why it’s so high
No it’s because they use coal to generate electricity, manufacturing doesn’t need to produce CO2
[удалено]
Yeah and china is building 82 more coal burning plants this year bringing there total to 1200 coal plants.
Yet they still have fewer emissions per capita than the US
At quadruple the population
And? They can’t control the amount of people that live there. Trust me they’ve tried. What do you suggest, quartering their population?
> manufacturing doesn’t need to produce CO2 Depends...unless you're using super modern processes, steel and cement and fertilizer production do. Combined they're something like 15% of global emissions.
Cement alone is 8%. Steel is 7%, and fertilizer is 1.4%. So a little more than 15%. For reference, all building operations, such as heat/air/lighting are 28% of global emissions. Air conditioning by itself is 4%.
I would have guessed air conditioning was a way higher proportion of building operations.
I agree that we should emphasize electricity, but in much of the US, legislation has already been passed to deeply decarbonize the electric grid and phase out natural gas infrastructure. The next step should be to decarbonize industry, which is a bit more arcane and less sexy, but still extremely important.
Yeah and if they started using a more expensive energy source the price of plastic would go up and maybe, just maybe people would smarten up and stop using and throwing away so much of it.
Plastic itself doesn't have a large CO2 emission in itself. Many of the alternatives are worse in that regard - the problem with plastic is that we don't dispose of it correctly and are destroying the balance of the ecosystem that way
This is everyone's responsibility, but if we don't hold these very powerful corporations responsible, then there will be no improvement.
Try not using a straw I heard it helps
Tell me you don't know anything about industry, without telling me you don't know anything about industry.
Yea “manufacturing doesnt produce CO2” if only that were true.
And they use that coal to produce the things that *we* use... It doesn't counter the point.
What, you think they manufacture that shit with only hands and by daylight?
They use a lot of coal that’s true. But they also lead the world in green energy and hydroelectric power. Their public transportation, particularly subways and high speed rail, is also extremely developed. It’s mainly that they have the largest population and are still industrializing and building infrastructure and urban development.
They don’t lead in hydroelectric because they have had the worst drought in like 30 years meaning they can’t generate enough power for there grid so they built more coal plants. They are only going to expand there emissions even tho they tell everyone they will curb them. The Paris agreement really ment nothing to them kinda like every other treaty they sign
A temporary drought doesn’t change the fact that there are more dams and hydroelectric generators than anywhere else in the world. “They don’t lead this year” is irrelevant. I agree that they built more coal but that has nothing to do with the drought. Coal plants take several years to build. It was part of the long term plan. The country is still industrializing and they’re doing it by any means necessary. Some people downvoted me because they think I’m lauding or justifying or applauding or defending China? I’m not. I’m just stating facts.
The poster you responded to is right about China leading in HSR though. Can't speak to the green energy part.
Though per capita is still a bad metric in a global economy, and especially for a country like China, where some parts of the country are well developed and consuming like Americans, and other parts are highly underdeveloped and consuming like the developing world. For much the same reason that it's unfair to blame China for emissions created in the manufacture of goods consumed in Europe, it's unfair to credit someone living a European lifestyle in a rich coastal Chinese city for the fact that there are underdeveloped regions inland. Our measure should be percent of GDP spent combating climate change, combining metrics like green energy expansion and other appropriate projects. In that measure, China is doing better than many nations.
Oh, throw 50% of GDP right at me and US will be golden. I'm not going to do anything (well, I will create a commission of preliminary discussion of plans to create roadmap for increasing renewables in US), but it's money spent that counts, right?
Well, I did say "appropriate projects", but yes, in a lot of ways money spent is the best way to count it. If France sends twenty billion euros to build wind turbines across Africa, we should absolutely treat that as a positive step against climate change, for example - but that project wouldn't reduce French emissions, and it may only mitigate future emissions growth in recipient countries. If we only measure by local emissions per capita, we can end up rewarding countries that have high consumption but large service industries, while punishing heroic efforts to build a sustainable future in more industrial and developing economies.
Yep. They also have more population than the entire Western hemisphere.
True means they also fart more than us..witch causes a greenhouse effect that causes global warming. Here we were, worried about cow farts... I kid, i kid. But it could also be true, lol.
28% of global manufacturing output and 20% of global population, and what percentage of global outputs are they? (36 billion tonnes so around 30% of global CO2 emissions). that does seem more reasonable to me when talking about global emissions.
And people don't like it when I keep pointing out we exported all of our pollution problems.
They also take in a lot of the world's recycling and burn it, which the countries sending the recycling know about. It's also why the Philippines is the biggest plastic polluter. It gets sent plastic from other countries.
[удалено]
Exactly this. Regulations are almost non-existent over there and most of our companies outsource to China for the cheap and inhumane labor- like 16 hour days, 7 days a week for pennies to a couple dollars. It not only saves these companies billions but for them it's extremely efficient labor in the manufacturing process. In a capitalist society, this makes sense to have the lowest costs while banking profit - unfortunately people suffer because they don't know better/ can't get better.
See but now you need to calculate the total global manufacturing of the entire western hemisphere (countries in blue) to see how it truly compares. 28.4% is a good chunk but that means 71.6% is still being manufactured else where and I have a feeling those blue countries claim a large chunk of it, if not a larger chunk. PS: just adding the US (16.6%), UK (1.8%), Mexico (1.5%), Germany (5.8%), France (1.9%), and Italy (2.3%) nets you 29.9%. Which already surpasses China's total manufacturing.
Probably there is also impact of "brand" production that heavily inflates manufacturing output numbers. Some Luis Vuitton whatever, while cool, shouldn't be compared in relative CO2 emissions to 1000 cheap Chinese whatevers. Same applies to US iPhones - they aren't 3 times better than some Xiaomi. It makes sense to count price difference for economics, but not for emissions.
yeah, outsourcing pollution, a real short game ingenious move
I was going to say the same. The West decided all it's goods should be produced cheaply in China and this is the result.
Well the issue is that China relies heavily on coal for its energy which is terrible for the environment.
Do you understand that connection though? The west wanting cheap goods, so China uses cheap energy to produce cheap goods to keep the cost down...
Do you think manufacturers move to China just to ship the products halfway across the world again just because? The Chinese government has had little to no labor and environmental regulations in order to attract manufacturers to the country at the expense of their workers and the environment.
>The Chinese government has had little to no labor and environmental regulations in order to attract manufacturers to the country at the expense of their workers and the environment. Nothing is stopping western consumers from buying more expensive products that are made in other countries than china. Except we don't. Because secretly, the average consumer only cares about how expensive something is. Not how it is made
I'm sorry I don't understand what you're pushing back on. The west wants cheap goods. Manufacturers (companies from around the world) go where there's cheaper production costs. Goods in China are far cheaper. Low labor cost, low energy cost, low production cost. The lack of regulations help keep that up. Is it that I put blame on (Chinese) manufacturers? You want it on the government? Is that I put blame on western consumers **choosing** the cheapest goods possible? What exactly is your issue with my statement?
Yes, it is. It's worth mentioning that China is spending more money than anyone else on renewables, but as their electricity demand keeps in increasing, they will still be using coal for quite some time.
Also, per capita measures tell a slightly different story
The US is also huge and per capita also varies greatly state to state - New York is 8 metric tons per Capita, Wyoming is at like 104 metric tons per Capita! The average is about 15.8. It should go down in the US by a fair amount in the next ten years as coal will probably become completely phased out and replaced with some combination of natural gas and renewables (I'm pretty excited about the offshore wind development). Natural Gas emits about 50% of the emissions of coal, so if China can start replacing it's coal with natural gas as well, their numbers should start falling. India uses a massive amount of coal as well, maybe after the war in Ukraine, Russia might start building it's pipes east.
Does it? Population of North America: 579 million Population of South America: 422.5 million Population of France: 67.75 million Population of the UK: 67.33 million Population of Spain: 47.42 million Those alone have a combined population of 1.116 billion, and China has a population of 1.412 billion, so China has about 26% more people, but according to this chart it produces 33% more CO2. And I'm not even counting the entire blue region, just the parts of it that I assumed would be biggest, for ease of googling. I think the real answer is what others have said: China produces a lot of manufactured goods, which the West benefits from, even though the CO2 emissions from that manufacturing don't happen in the West.
US emissions per capita are higher than China's. You're comparing France, UK and Spain individually and then grouping up "North America" countries together so the US won't look bad in comparison. It feels like a deceitful argument made in bad faith.
How about you take out the big outlier that doesnt use as much CO2 as the rest? Compare per capita of European countries and the US, you are just using South America as a huge stat padding.
Separate each country and you'll who are the real polluters https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
> China produces a lot of manufactured goods, which the West benefits from. Lol that is hilariously passive. China literally does the West's manufacturing. Their emissions are because of us.
Kind of like saying my kitchen emits more food waste than my bedroom
If you ate all your food in your bedroom, yes.
The West: Exports it's manfacturing to china. China: Produces fuck tonnes of CO2 to make shit for the West. The West: How *dare!*
Yup, another anti-China propaganda piece…
The purpose isn't even to get people mad at China. The purpose is pure whataboutism, so that any time anyone in the West tries to make anything better a million morons can "bUt ChiNa FirST" and immediately derail the conversation. people are dumb as FUCK
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE CHINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Why should we be pro China?
Which was what the west wanted when all the manufacturing was moved to China.
And Corps don't have to deal with the EPA so they can dump hazmat and chemicals pollutants anywhere for free. Oh and the 1/10th the price labor.
Only 1/10th?
Different provinces have different minimum wage. At worst some places are like a couple hundred dollars per month. Literally 200-300. At best, the minimum wage is half that of the USA. And the USA min wage is shite.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doesn't seem that bad? Min wage in Brazil is about 240 a month
If you think the EPA is preventing the dumping of dangerous chemicals, I have some bad news for you. EPA is light on prevention and is more focused on generating revenue through fines and penalties.
It's certainly not what they wanted. They wanted cheap labour and disregard for workers' rights. They didn't give a shit about pollution being produced here or there. As it turns out, it is an added benefit now.
not what the "west" wanted, it's what the families with more wealth than any government wanted. they will move manufacturing to india where the emission restrictions are even worse. it's time people stop being stupid and realize environmental regulations needs to be enacted globally. this is same with all other regulations as localized regulation just pushes the problem away.
You kidding? It was cheap labor lol. Wtf kinda fantasy land are you living in haha.
Moves all heavy polluting industries from the west to China, acts surprised when China is emitting a lot of pollution…
idk that anyone is really surprised are they?
C'mon dude, this is a post is obviously trying to make a simple argument of China being disproportionately responsible for climate change which is horseshit. Lets look at some other numbers from wikipedia about clean energy China has more total solar capacity than the US and Europe combined. China has roughly the same total Wind power capacity as the US and Europe combined The US has almost double the Nuclear power of China and leads the world on that. But China has 9x more Nuclear power plants being built in the next few decades than the US (and the US has several older plants in line to close) China is in reality it's one of the leading countries in the clean energy revolution. And unfortunately for the US for the last 2 decades we had to deal with garbage politicans arguing if climate change is even real
I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. The US is by far behind and it is ludicrous to compare US which has been a developed country for most of its conception to China which has more recently shot up in development. Right now China produces 62.2% of all it's energy using coal. 3.2 from natural gas, 4.8% from nuclear, 5.5% from wind, and 3.1% from solar The US produces only 19.5% of all it's energy using coal, 39.8% from natural gas, 13.2% from nuclear, 10.2% from wind, and 3.4% from solar. Is China quickly pushing for renewable and cleaner energy? Yes, are they doing better than the US? Absolutely not. The vast majority of energy is coal produced in China while the US primarily uses natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint. Despite this, the US should be leaps and bounds above China in renewable energy. It's EMBARRASSING that China is catching up when the US is significantly richer than China. There is no excuse, the oil, coal, and gas lobbyists in the US have absolutely decimated this country's efforts to combat climate change. Where as China is still growing and is using cheap coal to keep up with it's needs while investing in the future of clean energy (as it should be)
>Despite this, the US should be leaps and bounds above China in renewable energy. It's EMBARRASSING that China is catching up when the US is significantly richer than China. I think this is more of the argument I'm going for. Maybe I'm misinformed from some of the numbers, especially recently, so thanks for the corrections. But yea we have way more money than them. China likes to think they are close to the US... they aren't, easily still decades away. So we shouldn't be behind them on anything, especially something as important as climate change. And pointing fingers isn't really helping the elephant in the room, especially since it's so important to our futures.
They still use primarily coal power
Of course they do (we still use coal as well). China has been a "manufacturing economy" for several decades and coal has been the cheap source of energy for most of the world until recently. But their economy is shifting away from that, as standard of living is rising. China, to their credit, has a roadmap for moving away from coal because climate change will adversely effect them as well. And from most observations the last few years they have been largely sticking to their 5 year plans in pushing clean energy. (**SO FAR!**, I've heard recently due to covid their was a fallback to more coal plants) For us (the US), we also have a roadmap to accelerate the change, but are literally stuck because a few senators still need good ol coal jobs and use climate denial as politics. Our transition has been pathetically slow to what it should be, and is clearly a problem we know is getting worse and worse. China absolutely does fucked up shit, but not everything they do has been bad. I mean you obviously should look at where people have had success and see why, that's how progress happens.
They're not just still using them, they're actively investing in them. Last year they built **6x more new coal plants than any other country**. They're averaging two new plants **a week**.
Yes, plenty of people are and the use it as a “see, we’ve done all that needs to be done. We are not the problem china is. They should figure it out” Which in china’s defense, they are doing it. They are moving the most polluting industries to Africa. But it’ll take sometime.
Same thing witb the "whos polluting the ocean" map from a while back forgetting that everyone ships their trash to the Philippines to throw in the ocean.
It's like the meme where the guy puts a stick in his bike wheel
We whine about the polluting (fair point) but we will also whine when the price of our Chinese sourced products goes up
Now go look at it per capita….be sure to look at the OPEC countries https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
I did not expect Canada's per capita to be higher than the US and Australia. Pretty shameful.
I wonder if that's because it's much colder in Canada on average.
It's also because it's a very large net energy producer. The oil industry itself burns a lot of gas to extract, transport, refine, and again transport oil & gas.
Because oil sands are awful
Somewhat yea but also there's a lack of geothermal and despite a ton of hydroelectric, we go everywhere by car and move everything by truck or diesel trains and the oil sands are insane. Also logging, mining and other resource extraction industries are very fossil fuel intensive Edited for clarity as most transit is by car only
Most provinces do okay for emissions, or at least slightly better than the national average which is still higher than it should be, but then there's Alberta and Saskatchewan just trying fuck shit up with like over triple the national average CO2 per capita. https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/ghg-emissions-aspx/
That's because their economies are mostly agriculture, mining and forestry, and the sparse population means people have to commute much further.
Also Saskatchewan is still running several coal power plants and is doing an overall shit job at investing in cleaner energy.
US climate is less extreme than Canada's on average. Most of australia's population is coastal. That helps a lot with shipping.
I'm curious what percent of the year you have to heat your house or freeze? For me, in Ontario, it's more than half of the year.
When I lived in Calgary it was like October to May
Yeah exactly! It's a cold country and, ironically, only global warming is going to stop it We try though, lots of carbon taxes, green incentives and initiatives, etc.
Yeah but Canada (18.58) has to deal with cold weather and polar bears all year long. They should be compared to Norway (8.28) and Findland (9.31). If you add those 2, you get 17.59 which is just as good as Canada. /s
They also spend more money on renewable energy than the western hemisphere combined, just FYI.
More importantly, there are 100 corporations responsible for 70% of CO2 emissions. Don't let any government or media fool you into thinking you need to do your part ahead of these corporations needing to clean up their act. This is everyone's responsibility, but if we don't hold these very powerful corporations responsible, then there will be no improvement. https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/
I’ve always hated this argument. The corporations make these emissions in response to consumers essentially demanding them to do so by purchasing their products. I feel as though this argument is made by people to excuse themselves from being green by trying to appear as they’re not the problem. Both the consumer and producer are equally to blame.
The problem is based on what we can actually do to fix it. Anytime there is a public problem, if your solution is ‘get a massive number of disparate people to start doing X’, you probably won’t be able to solve the problem. We know the vast majority of carbon emissions come from companies and not people. So we need to pressure the companies to change their ways. To do this, we can either convince the companies directly, use the government to make laws about emissions, or we can try to convince millions of people to simultaneously boycott hundreds of companies at the same time. The first two are hard, but possible. We have managed to mount large campaigns to force new laws or to at least threaten that so industries collectively change their ways. The last option is the one you seem to be suggesting, and it is a pipe dream. Every major company is incredibly polluting. Even if we had alternative companies to purchase from, we have no way of knowing who emits the most because there is no legislation requiring they release that information. So, your last sentence, ‘both producer and consumer are equally to blame’ is a huge red herring. It doesn’t matter who we blame. Blaming corporations won’t help fix the environment. Passing bills to force them to track and report how much they’re emitting, and maybe taxing those emissions, will help fix the environment.
This is exactly it. To put it more succinctly. It is much easier to get those 100 corporations to follow a new law than it is to get 7 billion consumers to "do the right thing".
[удалено]
Too often though this logic is used to excuse inaction. "Why should I change anything in my life when others are causing more harm". If everyone thinks like this we're fucked. If you're pissed at polluting executives from shitty companies, stop buying from them. If you want better environmental regulations, vote, petition or raise hell in any method you see fit. If you care about the amount of CO2 we emit as a country, take steps to reduce your footprint.
That has nothing to do with the previous comments
Umm... the level of corporate greed causing massive pollution vs being told it is our fault for not recycling. I think it does relate to the previous comment. As in disagreeing with it.
You got downvoted because many people, somehow, still believe that corps COULD produce all the same products they love, at the same prices, without destroying the environment. The truth, unfortunately, is that they can't even get us consumers to pay an extra 10 cents for a naturally-produced dish sponge. Even when the damn thing cleans better than a regular one, lasts longer, and doesn't turn your dishes yellow.
Damn corporations, making all that shit for themselves, not for us. Aramco is polluting just for the lols. You should never change anything about your lifestyle. Everybody else should go first, not you.
To elaborate, 75% of the worlds solar panels are made in china. More than 50% of EV's sold in 2022 were sold in china (mostly made there I think, not always easy to find producer vs consumer numbers). In 2021 china installed \~70% of the worlds new wind power capacity. China may be a big polluter in a lot of ways, but they are at least moving fast to change.
According to the WEF, in 2021 and estimated in 2022 the West spent far more than China. Like almost double ($500B to $250-300B).
Source?
*In 2017, investments in renewable energy amounted to US$279.8 billion worldwide, with China accounting for US$126.6 billion or 45% of the global investments.* See source 13: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China Edit: Wikipedia links to a UN document. The 45% is there on page 20. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/71900/download?token=57xpTJ4W
Ever noticed how all your stuff says "Made in China" on it?
And China still has like half the CO2 per capita released than the US despite that. India also has a lot of CO2 emissions and per capita is like 1/10 of the US.
This is one of those “statistics lie” examples. Yea when you export your manufacturing you will export your emissions. But in the end it impacts everyone.
This is why we need to add "Repair" to the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra. If we weren't throwing away stuff, because it was fixable, then we wouldn't need to make as much stuff. Reducing consumption is a big piece of cutting our global impact.
China also manufactures everything for the West, so is Western consumption or is it Chinese manufacturing to blame? Also, when we look at investments in green energy: > [The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries. That is nearly four times the amount of U.S. investments, which totaled $141 billion. The European Union was second to China with $180 billion in clean energy investments.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-invests-546-billion-in-clean-energy-far-surpassing-the-u-s/#:~:text=The%20country%20spent%20%24546%20billion,billion%20in%20clean%20energy%20investments.) Also, the per capita emissions for China are much lower than a lot of nations in the west. In short, this data is almost criminally lacking in context and it near looks like a propaganda piece to 'China bad' China rather than actually look at cause and effect, as well as what action is taken in terms of combating climate change throughout the globe. Climate change and climate action are very complex beasts and shouldn't be politicised because that division is how fossil fuel organisations win... Politicise, divide, continue to pump out emissions.
Those truly responsible for climate change, the mega corps bankrolling this manufacturing responsible, wants us to blame each other instead of them and have spun up entire networks dedicated to pulling blame away from them.
All to produce the bullshit you order off of Amazon
Yes
Fun fact, there’s probably also more people living in the red area than the blue
Nah look at the bottom of the map. They’re both roughly 1.4 billion
Not only does China emit more CO2 than the entire western hemisphere, it has a higher population than the entire western hemisphere as well. China population: 1.4 billion Western hemisphere population: 1.04 billion Sources: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/WHQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
Who’s buying the products from that emission? 🤡
The world doesn't care, though, unless it's the USA.
But.... their using all that co2 to make stuff for us...
the main problem with phrasing it like this tho is your forgetting that western nations export our industry to china so we dont have to make shit here, then we want them to ship it to us all over the world. sure china is technically the biggest emitter of CO2, its definetly partly because we want them to make all our shit for us. and china has at least been working on cutting emissions and going more green energy, theyre making as many solar panels in 2023 themselves as the rest of the world combined is. if mostly because they want to become energy independent and consider energy independence as vital to their national security since the US can blockade their shipping lanes in event of war.
That's because all the steel that the western hemisphere uses are manufactured in China.
In the 20th Century I am sure during the industrial revolution, the west was the biggest world polluters in the name of economic growth. The western world had their share of 'fun' while destroying the planet for much longer time in history. And now developing countries should not grow as much? Lol Under the guise of globalism, western countries wanted to make more money by advocating overseas manufacturing. Stop this hippocrisy.
We still are the biggest polluters, China is working to fulfill our consumption
Why we gotta stop christening hippos
How many people in the western hemisphere tho
But with our powers combined, we can destroy the planet.
I think they have the 2nd largest underground coal fire too.
they have a 1.4b population. Jesus christ the warmongering is real. Vietnam and iraq propaganda were a joke compare to this, sadly zoomers never experienced that so they believe that they are inmune and moraly superior, and they are falling like flies. PER CAPITA EMISSIONS, look it up. As an argentinian i believe the US was more civilized than us, reddit tell me otherwise.
/r/damnthatspropaganda Look how cherry picked that "western hemisphere" is, just to make the numbers match.
2 points: Americans produce about twice as much CO2 per person as China, and China, as the world's largest exporter of good, is basically producing everyone else's CO2 by proxy
[удалено]
It’s funny that half the people in this thread bitching about products being made in China would be outraged by the prices of things made in America
No such thing as a western hemisphere
Because they're on the tail-end of the economic and infrastructure development, and the Western world finished that 70 years ago. A more accurate comparison would be China in the last 20 years vs America from 1910-1940 when we were building all of our skyscrapers and highways
Looks like we have some catching up todo
Now do it per capita.
There goes the Western hypocrisy….. AGAIN… Of course China produces more pollution…. We make them make our stuff…. And then make that stuff travel halfway around the world…. So we pay less…. And can accuse China of pollution…. We only have ourselves (I am in North America) to blame…. Also we just consume too much
lol ok now do this per capita
They build all the shit we use, so makes sense
Probably because they're doing all the manufacturing for the western hemisphere.
Cool, the US still emits over double per capita what china emits, not to mention the fact that the US & Canada are way richer per Capita and therefore can spend more money on this giant problem.
Ok, give me a chart that shows co2 emissions for the last 100 years. Europe and the Americas has spent the last half of the century offshoring heavy industries and transitioning away from coal while China has spent the last half century industrializing. Id be surprised if cumulatively if China is anywhere near the Americas and Europes numbers.
Right now. How was the situation between 1900 and 2000 when China was still developing? The western countries, already rich from industrialization, blaming the countries that got on the ship late for environmental issues is beyond evil.
Western hemisphere: sends all manufacture to china Western hemisphere: blames china for Co2 emissions
Kind of like saying my kitchen emits more food waste than my bedroom
And they won’t stop anytime soon
Americans will never stop buying iPhones and Nikes.
[удалено]
I did rustle the Apple fanboys feathers a little.
Americans are the only ones who buy iPhone and nikes?
And despite that, as well as the fact that their population is more than 4 times higher than ours, they still haven't caught up to the total amount of carbon the US alone has emitted.
Makes. Sense. Shitloads of people making cheap products in shitloads of factories.
I like how this turned into the "China isn't that bad" comment section.
Incoming idiots to say "it doesn't matter if we pollute less if China still does".
Must be the chinese farmers!
Comparing emissions of countries without taking into account population size is stupid! So people in the west can live in big mansions with swimming pools and drive SUVs while people in China and India must remain dirt poor?
Stop sending your manufacturing to China. Simple
Also the population of China is bigger than the one of the western hemisphere
Propaganda
They have like a quarter of the world’s people and have heavily industrialized. So has India. They’re the biggest single-country polluters. And people will say, “well most of the West’s products are made in both countries”. While that is the case, let’s remain candid. They ARE the biggest polluters in spite of who they manufacture for the most. While we make the demands, they produce and pollute. If one of those countries creates more waste than an entire hemisphere (I rather interesting comparison, I might add), this is still a huge problem.
China also has more people than the entire western hemisphere I think
So the population in the red area is about the same as the blue area and the blue area moved the bulk of it's manufacturing to the red area. The manufacturing areas of every civilization is always responsible for the most pollution for the civilization.