What kind of stupid measurement is that? The solution to being more environmentally friendly is now printing more money or what?
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
51 points (98.1% liked)
China, 中国
1134 readers
1 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
all 35 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
China's CO2 per capita is down too. What's your point?
How's your country meeting its sustainability goals?
Most emissions are from production. Factory of the world and all. So if you reduce the emissions for the same amount of production that's a useful statistic. Is that really so hard to understand?
It's not a useful statistic, but it's also not what the statistic is about. The gdp isn't just production, a significant part of it is the money earned by the citizens. So this puts the emissions at least partly in relation to the money the average citizen earns.
But let's just put that aside and assume gdp is a valid criterion. Even then, there are lots of countries that manage to grow their gdp while reducing their emissions. Which illustrates even more that emitting more co2 but growing the economy a bit more than those emissions isn't an achievement, it's a failure.
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?
Studies have found that absolute decoupling was rare and that only a few industrialised countries had weak decoupling of GDP from "consumption-based" CO2 production.[4] No evidence was found of national or international economy-wide decoupling in a study in 2020.[5] In cases where evidence of decoupling exists, one proposed explanation is the transition to a service economy.
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?
No evidence was found of national or international economy-wide decoupling
You have to be trolling or you are completely illiterate.
[removed by mod]
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).
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.
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.
[removed by mod]
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.
- Their currency rose vs $ by end of year, and the end of year value is probably what is used.
- GDP in China means making stuff. Manufacturing also kept growing in 2025, and it uses energy.
- The other way to improve this metric is to just have your GDP be insurance, finance, and a housing bubble.
CO2 emissions as a ratio of economic activity makes perfect sense. Not sure what this has to do with printing money. Sounds like you're deeply confused and angry.
If you measure economic activity in terms of domestic currency per capita, then you're effectively measuring against the amount of money available. It's a stupid way to measure anything.
It's also stupid to measure co2 emissions against economic activity if you don't use the local currency as the point of reference because a) the planet doesn't care how economically active society is when the climate goes downhill and b) you then usually use another currency, probably usd, as a point of reference, so even then inflation will keep boosting numbers, regardless of actual emissions.
The only number that counts is emissions per capita. China is terrible when it comes to that though, so I get why tankies keep inventing bullshit metrics to make it seem a little less horrific.
China's emissions per capita are about half those of the US while being the factory of the world?
In 2022, the per capita CO2 emissions in the United States were approximately 14.21 tons, while in China, they were about 8.89 tons.
Why are you so arrogantly wrong? Did you not look into it at all? Do you get off on humiliating yourself?
What does the US have to do with that? The US are obviously even worse. So what? China's emissions are rising dramatically and that's an issue. Saying that's not too bad because they have more money now is dumb because, as I said, the only relevant measurement is emissions per capita. Which should be zero (which they are nowhere) or declining (which china's don't). It's not a hard concept.
The US comparison matters since you called China "terrible" despite half the per capita emissions as the only reel peer power. (Even with US manufacturing being largely nonexistent)
China's emissions likely peaked in 2024 and are declining https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-18-months/ . They are also building roughly twice the new renewable capacity than the rest of the world combined https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-continues-to-lead-the-world-in-wind-and-solar-with-twice-as-much-capacity-under-construction-as-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/
Check the actual data before lecturing on "hard concepts." Or are you dumb on purpose?
The US comparison is stupid because the US are literally the worst offender when it comes to emissions per capita. That way you're hanging the bar so low you'll always end up winning.
I linked the emissions statistics I used earlier: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china
I'm well aware that China installs more renewables than anybody else. They also install much, much more coal than anybody else. So yeah, it could be worse, but it's still horrific and greenwashing that by comparing it to metrics of economic growth doesn't change it.
The US comparison isn't "stupid", it's essential when you called China "terrible" on per capita emissions despite them ranking ~25th globally with emissions roughly half the US level. Even ignoring peer comparisons, China's per capita footprint is only slightly above the EU average despite manufacturing goods for Western consumption, many EU countries appear "cleaner" only because they offshored production emissions to China .
Your coal argument also ignores context: China's new coal units are ultra-supercritical (44–48% efficiency vs. ~30% for older plants), replacing dirtier capacity and lowering net emissions per kWh Global Energy Prize. Crucially, coal utilization has fallen to ~51% as renewables cover demand growth, solar and wind supplied ~90% of new electricity demand in Q3 2025 alone Carbon Brief.
China also has 339 GW of wind/solar under construction, nearly twice the rest of the world combined Global Energy Monitor. Emissions have been flat or falling for 18+ months, consistent with a 2024 peak Carbon Brief. If you're citing OWID but ignoring rank data, consumption-based accounting, plant efficiency, and quarterly trends, you're not engaging with the actual metrics you're pushing a narrative.
Your coal argument also ignores context: China's new coal units are ultra-supercritical
Lol so we're defending Gigawatts worth of new coal plants now? Arguing that those are the better ones? This is just ridiculous.
Replacing old inefficient plants with new effecient ones reducing net emissions is good yes. I feel bad for your teachers having a student who's brain has clearly been medically removed.