this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
125 points (95.0% liked)
Climate
8512 readers
400 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What coffee-producing country is higher than the European countries on that chart?
Well this is more about the land use policies that the Europeans push on them, but you can easily find workshops of them "instructed African farmers on better ecological practices" and shit like that. They write articles about the dangers of monocropping, pesticide use, etc, all practices their debt system demands to keep up. They insist these countries do not develop higher industry even car factories as it would be a carbon explosion, that's been fixed with electric veh— But that would require background information, why not just attempt to gotcha me to misrepresent what I'm saying (the only thing anyone on here knows how to do)
I asked a simple question for clarification, that's not a gotcha attempt. If you can't answer it straightforwardly then maybe you gotcha-ed yourself.
I didn't misrepresent what you were saying. You claimed this graphic says Europeans have better climate stats than exploited coffee-producing regions. It appears to show most European countries as having higher carbon emissions per capita than any coffee-producing country.
Did you misrepresent yourself in what you were trying to say, or are you misrepresenting the graphic? Because you still haven't explained what you meant if it was something else, you just got defensive and complained about me asking you to clarify.
"It's not a gotcha"—proceeds to interrogate the point that was already clarified. Eat my entire ass snookums
Not my fault if you never read a Guardian article about the chilling prospect of Africa industrializing in the past fifteen years. You had time
You never clarified the point. And my last response wasn't a continuation of the first, it was a response to your reply. So that doesn't change the fact that my first response was not a gotcha attempt. My second was simply batting down your unnecessary hostility.
This post isn't about the guardian, it's about an infographic that shows european nations among the biggest per-capita carbon emitters. The only coffee-producing country that I'm aware of that I see in the graphic is Indonesia, which is near the bottom. So how was your comment relevant?
And unless you provide a source to a Guardian article saying what you're claiming, I'm just going to assume it's bullshit. They're not the torygraph...
Yes, it is interrogating the mangled point that assumes background info, instead of the clarification of what I meant + it's in the spirit of pedantry not inquiry, you're going back to what I said about emissions as if I'm literally implying these papers actually argue that Africa is already in same the position as semi-industrialized light manufacturing powers like Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, other areas that have developed some industry in order to make products for Western companies.
Fucking lunacy I'm not spoon feeding you all of The Guardian's trademark ecofash articles https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/14/africa-gas-exploration-climate-disaster-un-reserves https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/pollutionwatch-africa-increases-reliance-fossil-fuels#comment-135267211 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/africa-future-coal-oil-renewables-water but here's a few
If the alarmist framing "carbon bomb" doesn't give it away here, it's the future threat of Africa's development destabilizing the western financial system that concerns them. Not chiefly what would happen climatologically if they started using a lot more fossil fuels in order to keep up with demands of globalization + their respective debt traps. Just look at migrant labor on farms and first world countries. These people aren't interested in mechanization. They're interested in slavery. They never seriously invested in the green technologies that would allow Africa to develop without this carbon bomb going off, instead they wrote articles about how green energy wasn't economically viable. Why isn't avoiding the apocalypse economically viable? You'll find there's only subtle difference between Tories and Labour or whatever tf you people have over there now on important issues.
On western conditions, "climate protection" projects have become a semi-successful recolonization strategy where NGOs control African land instead of its inhabitants. Global emissions are used as political leverage to achieve this. They talked about using western state funds & retirements to spread a large forest preserve across the Sahel—this was of course pre-AES revolutions. Echoes old school feudal land agreements writ large, meant to ensure resourceful regions remain backwaters