48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
48 points (83.3% liked)
World News
32112 readers
1146 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Your link shows exactly what I said. EU and China close together, US way above. Go to the chart view and you can pick the EU as a single entity, plus you get the change over time.
Of course, what I actually said was not "energy usage". I said consumption-based emissions. You can get those here and you'll see that the slim gap between the EU and China vanishes altogether, plus the direction of travel changes. Energy consumption alone does not account for the way that that energy is being generated, something which seems pretty pertinent considering the article we're commenting under.
My link shows that it varies significantly across the EU and northern European countries consume around double of China per capita.
Okay? I'm sure it would vary significantly across different parts of China too, or across different parts of any individual country. I chose the EU as a whole because then we're dealing with an entity on a similar scale to China, and a much closer approximation of "the west" than any one country of five-ten million people.
You've completely failed to respond to the fact that energy consumption does not directly correlate with emissions. If you're using twice as much energy as me but you're getting it all from solar panels and I'm getting it all from burning coal, which one of us is doing more harm to the environment?
What the map clearly shows is that the highest consumption in China is on part with the lowest consumption in EU. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this to be honest.
Meanwhile, the reason to focus on energy consumption is because it's far more meaningful than focusing on emissions. EU countries are largely deinudstrialized and they import much of the necessities from places like China. This creates a skewed picture of emissions because EU outsources much of the emissions needed for EU to operate to other countries.
And last I checked burning increasingly more coal is precisely what EU is doing. In fact, Germany is even dismantling wind farms to create more coal plants https://euobserver.com/green-economy/157364
The map shows the average across all of China. There is no breakdown of any national subdivisions. Where are you getting figures for the highest consumption in China?
Why? Energy consumption is not what's damaging the environment. Emissions are.
I used consumption-based emissions specifically to account for the balance of imports. Please, at least actually read what I said.
Again, you're looking at one part of a much larger entity and ignoring the broader picture. While I do not want to see Germany, or anyone else, opening new coal mines, single-digit numbers of wind turbines are not going to save the day here.
In 2022, Germany burnt 28 petajoules of coal per million people, whereas China burnt 62 petajoules of coal per million. Values here for Germany and China, divided by populations taken from wikipedia. You'll also notice that Germany's consumption is trending down, while China's isn't.
Once again, averaged out usage per capita across China is on par with averaged out with poorest parts of Europe. Meanwhile, usage in wealth European countries, is far higher.
In case you weren't aware, emissions are a byproduct of energy production.
You're complaining that I didn't reply to stuff you edited in after I replied to you?
You're once again setting up a disingenuous argument here. Germany started with high consumption of coal, but then started getting cheap gas from Russia which is what allowed Germany to start phasing out coal. Now that US blew up the pipelines, Germany is starting to go back to coal.
Meanwhile, China has a clear plan for transitioning off fossils that's being actively implemented as we speak. Coal usage in China has been found to be perfectly inline with the plan. It's also worth noting that China has consistently manged to be ahead of the targets that it set. On the other hand, Europe is nowhere close to pursuing a meaningful transition.
So not what you said in your previous comment then. Besides that, I've been using the average figures for the entire EU the whole time. Your own link has that figure. I told you where it is as well. Energy usage is close, and consumption-based emissions are identical.
Again: solar panels vs coal. There is not a 1:1 correlation. Stop ignoring that. It's not helpful to anyone.
It's literally the first thing I said in my first comment. I edited in a source to my second comment, I didn't edit the first one. Either way, you've seen it now, so you can respond to it.
Lmao, I post numbers for entire countries, you post an article about literally eight windmills, and I'm being disingenuous? Okay lol. Call me when Germany more than doubles its coal consumption per person to catch up to China.
Considering that Europe no longer pollutes more per person than China (again, consumption-based and averaged across the EU and China so that rich and poor, industrialised or not, imports and exports, all is accounted for) while still trending downward while China trends up, this does not seem like a reasonable claim. Europe's transition is already happening, and the numbers bear it out. Should it have happened earlier? Yes. Should it be happening faster? Also yes. But neither of those things change the fact that Europe is polluting less over time, while China is doing the opposite, or the fact that there is no longer a gap in emissions per person.
I hope China's plans work well. I still have to live in the world, and if it's choked by CO2 then it does me no good being able to say "oh well it's China's/America's/Europe's/anyone else's fault". We need everyone to do their part. But the plans do not change the current reality, which is the thing I originally commented on.
It is what I said in my previous comment. To get the average for EU, you'd have to add up all the countries together. What you're doing is cherry picking pars of Europe and comparing them to China's average. If you still can't understand the fallacy you're making then there's likely no point continuing this.
Nobody is ignoring anything here. The whole context of the discussion is that China is rapidly ramping up production of solar power.
The reality we live in is that the west carries the biggest historical burden for the climate crisis, and right now China is making a meaningful transition from fossil fuels while western countries are dragging their feet. What's more Europe is now talking about banning electric cars from China and complaining and moaning about becoming dependent on China for its renewable infrastructure at a time everyone should be working together to make the transition as fast as possible.
No, it isn't. You said highest in China and then gave the average for China as your source.
I'm literally taking the entire EU average from your source. I have been consistently and completely clear about that. Why are you lying so blatantly? Seriously, quote me cherry picking just part of the EU. I can sure as hell quote you cherry-picking specific parts of it.
You're literally not doing that because the source is breaking Europe into emissions by country. Seems like you're the one blatantly lying here. What I said repeatedly here is that the lowest emissions in EU countries are on par with China, however many of the northern EU countries are much higher. So, when you add it all up that's a higher number. I don't know if you're lying intentionally or just incapable of understanding basic math here.
I already said that you can go to the chart view on the source and get the EU figure. It is in there if you take five seconds to look.
and when you do that you see that EU has significantly higher per capita consumption put together which is what I have been saying here all along
Which does not address the fact that consumption-based emissions, the actual damage being done to the environment, do not even have that gap. So now that we've established that I was not actually lying, care to address any of that?
You've been continuously claiming that EU has per capita emissions on part with China. This is false.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is that Europe has had far higher consumption-based emissions historically with China catching up only recently as the standard of living in China started to increase. So, if we're talking about actual cumulative damage done, Europe bears far greater responsibility.
Once again, China has a clear plan for phasing out fossils and it has been consistently ahead of schedule in doing so. Same cannot be said for Europe.
Then source that. I gave you a source, the same website you used first, and it shows exactly what I said. Here it is again, just to be clear. Energy consumption is not the same as emissions.
I've never argued Europe's higher historic emissions, but no matter who has done more historically we still all need to stop producing so much pollution now. China emitting less historically will not save us if it produces more in future.
And like I said, I hope it works, but the actual numbers right now are that China now produces as much as Europe and if current trends continue it will be producing more. If Europe has no plan and China has such a great one, why are the outcomes today the same?
You just keep going in circles here, and I've addressed this multiple times. Go back and read what I said. Nobody is saying energy consumption is same as emissions. I don't know why you keep bringing that up to be honest.
Sure, and as I keep pointing out. China has a clear plan that's being implemented ahead of schedule. Europe does not have such plan, and it does not want to work with China on implementing one. That's the real problem here.
I'm not seeing a source for "You’ve been continuously claiming that EU has per capita emissions on part with China. This is false."
I've sourced my argument, and it was a source that you brought up first. Your turn.
My bad, you did talk about consumption based emissions. The point you keep avoiding is that China is currently implementing a tangible plan while Europe is not.