China is in a league of it’s own on basically every metric of green energy adoption and their growth in all these sectors is only accelerating while the rest of the world is regressing towards LNG and other hydrocarbon based fuels.
Green energy and preservation of the environment is also a core component of all their future development goals.
Thank you for the reply and I appreciate the graphs. Most of those stats would benefit greatly, and would present a better picture if the units were per person though.
I’m actually more impressed with some of the other countries in those images, that managed to achieve some of those things with a fraction of China’s population.
It’s hard to show historical graphs in a post, but even 15 years ago China was at the bottom of all these lists.
The thing that makes China so impressive is that almost all of that capacity has been built out in under 2 decades with no signs of slowing (in fact it’s all actually accelerating).
Sure the other countries on there have a better per-capita green energy utilization for the moment, but those other countries are also fully developed and have had the capacity and opportunity to expand their green sectors for 50+ years.
Another thing that isn’t shown here is that China manufactures 90% of the worlds solar panels. Meaning that even though they’re still #1 for energy production, their flooding of the solar market with cheap panels has allowed dozens of countries to take advantage of that and expand their solar energy generation capacity while offloading the work of manufacturing (and the carbon energy costs of manufacturing) to China.
Another thing is that population doesn’t really mean anything, Africa and India are both close in population to China but are well behind everyone else. China is a developing nation still and is only at the beginning of its development into a modern nation. Their model is heavily export focused and their rapid development is being shared with those regions.
As they continue to advance in these sectors, they’ll become a development model for India and Africa. Either that or America ends the world because they want to export LNG
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics… But somehow it always ends with “America bad” (which I don’t necessarily dispute, but I think is just lazy).
Lets break some things down:
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it’s just obfuscation.
These forest growth numbers are great, but they don’t tell the whole picture that even with this rate of growth, China will still have less forest than the US in 30 years time.
‘Nuclear plants most in production’ don’t mean much as it can take forever to finish and even then China will have less than France or US.
‘Most high speed railroad’ it’s impressive, but isn’t it wasteful to build something just for boasting? The railway is highly underutilised - only 60% use (and that’s with the big skew for the major urban centres, some lines barely meet 10%).
To build the three gorges dam 1.3 million people were displaced, and between 70k to 230k died.
China has one of the worst health and safety standards in the world. The death toll in manufacturing and construction is FOUR times higher than the global average.
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means? You can’t get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say “no thanks”.
Anyways, I think China is doing a lot of good steps for the environment, and it pushes other countries to compete. But saying that China is the only one that can save us, while burning 53% of the world’s coal is ridiculous.
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics…
Obviously if you do legitimately wish to have discussions in good faith, it would be a good idea not to immediately accuse people of being propagandized.
In per capita terms, China still produces far less CO2 than other developed nations despite also manufacturing a large amount of the goods those developed nations use.
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means?
For one, I think your death toll for the construction of the three gorges dam is probably out by a couple of magnitudes. Does the end goal justify the means? Almost certainly. China has just compressed an entire 200 years of bloody industrialization (which it has been for every country) into 20 years. There are no countries on Earth that industrialized without vast quantities of blood spilled.
You can’t get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say “no thanks”.
Do you really think people in western countries often vote for national governments one way or another because of their opinions on workplace health and safety? There aren’t many countries where the electorate of a workplace can democratically vote to change their boss if they think it’s too dangerous. Again, if you want to have legit good faith discussions, it’s not a good idea to suggest that China isn’t democratic simply because it doesn’t conform to a particular template of democracy that you subscribe to. Many people would say that China is in fact more democratic than the west.
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it’s just obfuscation
You raise a good point. The climate looks at the number of people in within legal jurisdictions and takes that into account when calculating how much temperatures go up.
To build the three gorges dam 1.3 million people were displaced, and between 70k to 230k died. China has one of the worst health and safety standards in the world. The death toll in manufacturing and construction is FOUR times higher than the global average.
The fuck you getting these numbers? (I don’t expect a reply)
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it’s just obfuscation.
I mean you’re free to cite those stats if you want. Also they’re the industrial powerhouse of the world right now of close their emissions are high, point is they’re doing something about it, unlike a certain nation that have exported much of industry but still have crazy high emissions cuz they refuse to update their infrastructure cuz that may cut into their unsuccessful bombing of Yemen budget.
Why? What is China doing better in this context?
China is in a league of it’s own on basically every metric of green energy adoption and their growth in all these sectors is only accelerating while the rest of the world is regressing towards LNG and other hydrocarbon based fuels.
Green energy and preservation of the environment is also a core component of all their future development goals.
Thank you for the reply and I appreciate the graphs. Most of those stats would benefit greatly, and would present a better picture if the units were per person though. I’m actually more impressed with some of the other countries in those images, that managed to achieve some of those things with a fraction of China’s population.
It’s hard to show historical graphs in a post, but even 15 years ago China was at the bottom of all these lists.
The thing that makes China so impressive is that almost all of that capacity has been built out in under 2 decades with no signs of slowing (in fact it’s all actually accelerating).
Sure the other countries on there have a better per-capita green energy utilization for the moment, but those other countries are also fully developed and have had the capacity and opportunity to expand their green sectors for 50+ years.
Another thing that isn’t shown here is that China manufactures 90% of the worlds solar panels. Meaning that even though they’re still #1 for energy production, their flooding of the solar market with cheap panels has allowed dozens of countries to take advantage of that and expand their solar energy generation capacity while offloading the work of manufacturing (and the carbon energy costs of manufacturing) to China.
Another thing is that population doesn’t really mean anything, Africa and India are both close in population to China but are well behind everyone else. China is a developing nation still and is only at the beginning of its development into a modern nation. Their model is heavily export focused and their rapid development is being shared with those regions.
As they continue to advance in these sectors, they’ll become a development model for India and Africa. Either that or America ends the world because they want to export LNG
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics… But somehow it always ends with “America bad” (which I don’t necessarily dispute, but I think is just lazy).
Lets break some things down:
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means? You can’t get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say “no thanks”.
Anyways, I think China is doing a lot of good steps for the environment, and it pushes other countries to compete. But saying that China is the only one that can save us, while burning 53% of the world’s coal is ridiculous.
deleted by creator
Obviously if you do legitimately wish to have discussions in good faith, it would be a good idea not to immediately accuse people of being propagandized. In per capita terms, China still produces far less CO2 than other developed nations despite also manufacturing a large amount of the goods those developed nations use.
For one, I think your death toll for the construction of the three gorges dam is probably out by a couple of magnitudes. Does the end goal justify the means? Almost certainly. China has just compressed an entire 200 years of bloody industrialization (which it has been for every country) into 20 years. There are no countries on Earth that industrialized without vast quantities of blood spilled.
Do you really think people in western countries often vote for national governments one way or another because of their opinions on workplace health and safety? There aren’t many countries where the electorate of a workplace can democratically vote to change their boss if they think it’s too dangerous. Again, if you want to have legit good faith discussions, it’s not a good idea to suggest that China isn’t democratic simply because it doesn’t conform to a particular template of democracy that you subscribe to. Many people would say that China is in fact more democratic than the west.
You raise a good point. The climate looks at the number of people in within legal jurisdictions and takes that into account when calculating how much temperatures go up.
This is bullshit. US/West would celebrate this news piece every year if there are that many deaths.
deleted by creator
The fuck you getting these numbers? (I don’t expect a reply)
I mean you’re free to cite those stats if you want. Also they’re the industrial powerhouse of the world right now of close their emissions are high, point is they’re doing something about it, unlike a certain nation that have exported much of industry but still have crazy high emissions cuz they refuse to update their infrastructure cuz that may cut into their unsuccessful bombing of Yemen budget.
the mental gymnastics liberals have to go through to not say anything good about china lmao
Death to America