A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I think it's worth noting that all this energy is needed for all the manufacturing that we demand. Western countries aren't blameless in this.
Actually western countries are completely blameless here. Why would western countries be blamed for Chinese emissions? Western companies could be blamed sure but when it comes to climate we expect this to be handled at a policy level. When we look at this issue we see that Western countries did make policy changes that hurt their manufacturing and growth in pursuit of better climate change outcomes but china didnt. So when it comes to blame no one forced China to undercut manufacturing by artificially deflating their currency, lying about climate change goals and having no environmental regulations. China could have implemented environmental regulations and labour laws on par with the west. They could have started transitioning to renewables a decade and a half earlier. They choose not to and they choose to scale coal knowing the damage they are doing to the world.
Hell they still lie about their climate change impacts and sponsor green washing propaganda media overstating their progress. Their emissions graph looks like the stock market and when it drops .8% "people" act like its about to come crashing down.
There is no way we would talk about this the same if Europe got rid of their min wage,labour laws, environmental laws, and invested in non clean energy and manufacturing.
Isn't that like saying I'm morally fine for knowingly buying stuff made with slave labour because they aren't my slaves?
No I dont think thats equivalent. Climate change emissions is an issue that needs to be addressed on a country scale. We dont blame individuals for climate change.
Its fine to let the blame rest on china for their own emissions. They intentionally choose that route.
If a company comes to new Zealand their emissions are regulated by the nz government and nz is responsible for those emissions. In no reality would we blame another country.
I honestly think we should.
If I'm a massive climate polluter, say, I use a lot of coal to produce steel. If my company decides to set up a subsidiary in China to make it, then claims they just reduced their climate emissions by 90%, I would say that's a bunch of bullshit, all they did was move where the chimneys were.
I'm an advocate for having carbon credits decided based on supply chains not based on borders, otherwise all we do is move our pollution to countries that don't care.
No. Just read the article. Most solar panels China produces sit and do nothing. Instead of investing into the domestic grid, China pursued a policy to subsidies production even as the output is not needed, neither in China nor in the world. The only thing Western countries are to blame is that they didn't ban cheap Chinese tech already back in the 2000s (industry experts have warned about this even then).
This problem has intentionally been "Made in China." Something like this happens if a centralized government wants to gain control over entire supply chains while ignoring economic realities.
China's government has been getting a lot wrong here for a long time, and by now there seems to be no intention to correct course. There are many excellent analyses that proof this, for example, one is here:
The explanation for China’s recent coal boom lies in a combination of policy priorities, institutional incentives and system-level mismatches, with origins in the widespread power shortages China experienced in the early 2020s.
In 2021, a “mismatch” between the price of coal and the government-set price of coal-fired power incentivised coal-fired power plants to cut generation ... China had – and still has – more than enough “dispatchable” resources to meet even the highest demand peaks. (Dispatchable sources include coal, gas, nuclear and hydropower.) It also has more than enough underutilised coal-power capacity to meet potential demand growth.
A bigger factor behind the shortages was grid inflexibility. During both the 2020 power crisis in north-east China and the 2022 shortage in Sichuan, affected provinces continued to export electricity while experiencing local shortages.
A lack of coordination between provinces and inflexible market mechanisms governing the “dispatch” of power plants – the instructions to adjust generation up or down – meant that existing resources could not be fully utilised ... Nevertheless, with coal power plants cheap to build and quick to gain approval, many provinces saw them as a reliable way to reassure policymakers, balance local grids and support industry interests, regardless of whether the plants would end up being economically viable or frequently used ...
Yes, but think of all the news releases about Chinese hyper-advancement they precipitated while sitting idle! /s
Exporting to the West is still a heavy cause of that demand that's not being met, though.
Well my point was basically this:
The only thing Western countries are to blame is that they didn’t ban cheap Chinese tech already back in the 2000s (industry experts have warned about this even then).
But you're right, I started reading with an agenda and got the wrong point.
This problem has intentionally been “Made in China.”
You're implying it was the government's intent rather than incompetence?
You’re implying it was the government’s intent rather than incompetence?
I wouldn't say incompetence in that there are many excellent experts in China who perfectly know -and always knew- a better way forward. The problem imo is that they have nothing to say, and everyone who dares to express an even slightly different opinion than the central government risks to get in big trouble.
As an example: Because China wants to achieve its planned GDP growth, political leaders in the provinces are given 'targets' by the central government for their regional output. To reach this target (and secure their political careers?), they build coal plants and other infrastructure, although they are often not needed. As regional leaders want to achieve their local GDP goals, there is also little incentive to collaborate with each other - such as in joint grid investments that would enable them to share resources. (The central government has announced it will invest in its countrywide grid some time ago, but so far nothing tangible has happened.)
One result is excessive overcapacity in a large number (all?) sectors.
I wouldn’t say incompetence in that there are many excellent experts in China who perfectly know -and always knew- a better way forward. The problem imo is that they have nothing to say, and everyone who dares to express an even slightly different opinion than the central government risks to get in big trouble.
Where I live, we have plenty of experts, and the current government largely ignores their advice. I'm not sure this is any different.
Anyway, I just learnt something, so I'm going to back away now. Have a good day.