this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
51 points (98.1% liked)
China, 中国
1134 readers
2 users here now
English
This is a forum dedicated to China, Chinese culture Chinese language, and Chinese people.
Rules:
- Be civil, be respectful, don't attack other users
- No racism, sinophobia, or other bigotry allowed
- No misinformation
- Follow all other Lemmy rules
中文
这是一个专门讨论中国、中国文化、中国语言和中国人的论坛。
规则:
- 要文明，要尊重，不要攻击其他用户
- 不允许有种族主义、仇视中国人或其他偏执行为
- 不允许故意提供错误信息
- 遵守 Lemmy 的所有其他规则
Related communities / 相关的互联网论坛
Community icon by CustomDesign on MYICONFINDER, licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder what those countries share maybe the fact that they offshored their carbon heavy industries and reskilled towards the information sector? I wonder what country most of that industry ended up in and has it as it's main economic driver?
Your own link disagrees with you and agrees with me.
Oh... So now we agree that relating them to gdp is a dumb way to measure emissions?
You have to be trolling or you are completely illiterate.
What defense? Your link disproves your point? You're not wrong because you're dumb you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
The link states that there are a bunch of countries who absolutely managed to lower emissions while increasing gdp. The argument against it isn't that this isn't true, it's that there's no "true" economic decoupling because gdp doesn't reflect a whole bunch of stuff (such as emission heavy industries just being moved to countries that don't give a flying fuck about emissions).
What is it? Are China's emissions great because they decline in relation to gdp? Then they're really not because other countries manage to increase gdp while reducing emissions drastically. Or don't those statistics matter because there's no true decoupling? Then gdp is obviously the wrong value to measure against, which is what I said in the first place. Right now you're arguing both ways, but always in the direction that benefits China, which is obviously contradictory.
You're still fundamentally illiterate on the actual distinction the source makes, so let me spell it out in words small enough for you to process: production-based accounting vs. consumption-based accounting are not interchangeable. The reason those cute little "decoupling" success stories exist is literally because they moved their smokestacks to countries like China. The link you proudly waved around says this directly. It's not a subtle point. It's the entire caveat. So when you point to falling emissions in Country X as proof GDP/emissions ratios are not meaningful, while ignoring that Country X just outsourced its heavy industry to the very place you're criticizing, you're not making an argument, you're demonstrating that you can read words without comprehending their function (you are functionally illiterate).
China is the factory of the world. That is not a secret. That is not a bug. It is the structural reality of global trade. So when China manages to keep producing an absurd volume of goods while reducing emissions per unit of GDP, that is genuinely useful information. It tells you efficiency is improving under real-world constraints. What is not useful is pretending that a service-heavy economy with no manufacturing base is "winning" on emissions by virtue of having shipped its carbon footprint overseas. That's not decoupling. That's accounting fraud.
So no, I'm not arguing both ways. I'm applying consistent logic: if you care about actual global emissions, you have to follow the production. If you only care about looking good on a chart, sure, keep clapping for countries that reduced emissions by closing factories and importing the same goods from China. But don't pretend your chart proves anything about environmental progress, and don't act surprised when someone points out that your "gotcha" was debunked in the third paragraph of the source you linked. At this point, you're either trolling intentionally, or you're genuinely incapable of holding two related ideas in your head at once.
GDP/emissions is a useful data point when used in conjunction with knowledge of what groups of industry are pushing GDP. The fact you can't see this is amazing.
Comrade you have the patience of a saint
I wouldn't say that compared to the likes of cowbee I couldn't hold myself back from insulting this illiterate (even if it's fully deserved).
So it's a useful data point if it suits your talking points but not if it doesn't, got it. What nonsense. Provide useful data beyond claims of some absurd "accounting fraud" and then we can talk.
Wow. You really are a complete fucking idiot. I was hoping you were just trolling, but this reply confirms you genuinely cannot process basic analytical reasoning. My previous reply literally explained why context matters, and you responded by pretending that acknowledging complexity is "cherry-picking" or nonsense. That's not an argument. You complete illiterate.
Let me try again to make this painfully simple, since nuance clearly breaks your brain: No statistic is useful in isolation. GDP alone means nothing without context on inequality, debt, or informal labor. Emissions per capita mean nothing without context on consumption vs. production. Life expectancy means nothing without context on healthcare access or data quality. This isn't "moving the goalposts" it's logic 101. If you think adding necessary context to a metric is "changing the rules," you clearly don't understand how data works.
You demanded "useful data," I gave you concrete figures on production share, emissions intensity decline, and trade flows and your response was to whine about "talking points." You don't want data. You want a single, decontextualized number that lets you feel superior while ignoring how the global economy actually functions.
So here's the closing statement you clearly needed: China reducing emissions while producing the world's goods is meaningful progress. Pretending countries that outsourced their carbon footprint are "winning" is not. If that distinction is too complex for you, if adding industrial context feels like "cheating," then this conversation was never possible. You're not arguing in good faith, you're performing ignorance. And I'm done entertaining it. You ignorant arrogant petulant child.
Why should I not insult you when you can't even comprehend anything I say?
🤣 👉
The kind of economic output matters, doesn't it? If a country's main sources of economic growth are tourism, cultural products, and financial instruments then it's very different from a country that produces manufactured goods and relies on heavy industry.
Which means gdp is a shitty value to relate emissions to. Exactly. Because it says nothing about that.
It's still useful because China is a country that produces manufactured goods and relies on heavy industry. The fact that they can achieve GDP growth from energy-intensive economic activity while shrinking the proportion of emissions is good news.
That's the whole point, it actually isn't. This isn't helping. The planet is off worse. People in China earn more money and China exports more stuff, but in the end they still emit a buttload more because they, while also building lots of renewables, are also building lots and lots of new fossil fuel burning facilities.
Also, the people here keep bringing up this whole "China produces so many good and relies on heavy industry" point. That's not what the gdp is about, so the argument is moot because it's essentially just a feeling.
Last year, China brought 78 gigawatts of new coal power online. It should be 0, no question.
But by comparison they added 315 gigawatts of solar capacity and 119 gigawatts of wind.
This is part of the story of why emssions-to-GDP ratios have fallen, because even as more fossil fuel burning is happening it's taking up less of the economy. This matters, because eventually that will reach a tipping point. They just haven't reached it yet.