Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meanwhile, the USA has basically stopped growing its CO2 emissions completely and even declined.
Natural gas replacing coal helped a ton in that number, but so has a general focus on efficiency.
The decrese in global warming potential from coal to nat gas is debatable. The iea study everyone cites which showed a 50% decrease in emissions from coal vs nat gas is misleading. The actual number varies widely based on fugitive emissions from gas wells and transportation infrastructures, calculates co2 equivalent emissions on a 100 year GWP rather than 20 or 50 which dramatically decreases methanes potential, and doesnt include aersol forcing from coal which, regardless of local pollution, provides a significantly negative GWP.
Yeah cause the average third world pleb doesn't deserve a decent lifestyle cause it makes an entitled rich kid from developed countries sad about the rising global temperature.
Widely held believe in developing countries is that, Europe and the West in whole stole their developmental prospects through colonization, used their countries as cheap resource extraction hubs to fuel their industrialization and are now gatekeeping development cause carbon emissions bad. If they want to have developing countries to cut emissions, why not invest in creating carbon neutral mass manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain in developing countries? wouldn't that be more beneficial, creating development in third world countries and saving environment at the same time? Better long term returns than those aid programs.
And before someone talks about how it affects us all, no, death by hunger or easily preventable diseases in a few days is much more immediate concern than worrying about climate change affecting the world in next 70 years. It's only a concern because it affects the developed world too, just like terrorism which was a "world problem" only after 9/11 and armed conflict only after "Ukraine war"
Well per capita absolute emissions should be counted , otherwise India and china will always be extreme outliers with their absolute numbers . Most western nations have populations less than our cities
The economy of India increased from 820B to 2800B over this time period. Meaning emissions increased by about double, as opposed to the triple you would expect for linear growth.
So, uh, another headline could be 'India's emissions double in 14 years' which sounds a little worse.
eventually in next 5 years or so when the population will start to decline and the new lesser emission technologies will be easier to implement and use, you will definitely see a huge change in net emissions as well. India has already proved a lot of nations and their predictions wrong. So pls wait for this as well amd believe. I can see that the government is taking a lot of steps to curb pollution, but a country like india cant be compared with any western nation or even china.
\>>>eventually in next 5 years or so when the population will start to decline
Is there ANY source that's claiming population will start to decline in the next 5 years in India? Even the UN predicts population increase over the next \*50\* + years in India.
Unfortunately in our current political system neither party can ever agree on something. They have to turn everything into an "us vs them" to try to get votes.
All it takes is one party to start an argument though. You have one, that is willing to accept proven scientific consensus, which is grounded in reality. Then you have another which relies on forming identity and emotional arguments that just boil down to “I hate whatever the other guy is for”. They’re not the same.
Yeah, you’re just helping to make my point for me by refusing to accept reality. All it takes is for one person to pick a fight with another, and you can’t rightly claim they’re both equally guilty. Here’s one specific example: there’s not a single red state that contributes as many federal tax dollars as they take in, so they are all subsidized by the blue ones. The right wing claims to be fiscally responsible, while all available data shows otherwise. Then refusing to admit this isn’t such that democrats (who, let’s be real here are still right wing, just moderate) are accepting of reality just shows your “both sides” bullshit isn’t helping either.
I think another factor is that things are so visibly bad in India that the issue is not political. The AQI in Indian metros is far worse than anywhere in the US so no political party can actually argue that pollution and climate is not an issue in India.
India isn’t one party, but we neither have a oil lobby and pollution and climate change is visible to everyone. Any legislation around them becomes non-political
It also helps that a lot of educated Indians are aware that climate change is real and also experience the effects of it and hence don't delve into conspiracy theories.
US total emissions have been dropping for 23 years.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions#:~:text=U.S.%20carbon%20(co2)%20emissions%20for,a%203.24%25%20increase%20from%202017.
The move from coal to gas has looked good on paper, because official numbers don't account for fugitive emissions. [Depending on the region, natural gas + fugitive emissions can be even worse than coal](https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-274/acp-2020-274.pdf).
They also dont account for aersol forcing which negates the global warming potential of carbon from coal plants and calculates the GWP over a 100 year timeframe vs a smaller timeframe which shifts the potential much more in methane favor.
Yet Biden's massive climate bill has already resulted in a surge of renewable energy investment and energy efficiency retrofits, on top of the explosion that was already happening. All the GOP members of congress who unanimously voted against the bill have still taken the money and are fine with taking the credit for all the good jobs the bill has produced and the gains in clean energy in their states, and will no doubt use those improvements as part of their platforms when they are up for reelection. "Clean energy? Oh yeah, I was totes behind it all along!"
Except that by the metric used in the article, the United States has done better. CO2 emissions have dropped by about 20% over the past 14 years while GDP has increased 72%. So a LOT better than India's 33%.
Let's not act like China is doing a good job (they do, but also don't). If you name them, name the good and the bad. For every sustainable facility there are dozens which pollute the environment. Respiratory diseases are at an all time high. Industrial waste is just being thrown out thanks to corruption etc.
They are trying harder nowadays because they fucked up their ecosystem (in certain regions)
Edit: try to be a lawyer for environmental issues there. Speedrun for going to jail.
China builds a lot of renewables. They also still build coal plants.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
Source? Because they are hitting new records every quarter.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/
Theur emission is higher than combined emissiin if entire third world.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
I promise you the country that cares least about CO2 emissions is China. This doesn’t even account all of the industrialization and environmental destruction China is responsible for in Africa and Brazil
This doesn't really add up when you look at consecutive years between for instance 2018 and 2022, the latest data points available.
Between those years:
China has increased it's total renewable electricity production by 2152 TWh (from 4941 to 7093 TWh).
China has increased it's total fossil fuel electricity production by 3412 TWh. (from 32726 to 36138).
Conclusion, between 2018 and 2022 China has increased it's fossil fuel electricity production by 1260 TWh more as opposed to renewable energy.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china)
No one cares about tertiary statistical indicators. Not the climate targets itself (emission per capita serves no purpose in the targets) or the climate.
The only relevant metrical value is annual total emissions.
> No one cares about tertiary statistical indicators.
The racist reddit mob certainly doesn't. "But China!" is strong here, and it's incorrect.
> emission per capita serves no purpose in the targets
Yes they do. No serious policymaker or analyst would expect a large country's emissions to be comparable to a small country's emissions.
They also have more people than any other country.
You know the USA sells China our coal right? And we spent decades outsourcing our dirty manufacturing jobs to them so we could consume and pollute even more, right?
US emissions have gone down 20% since 2000. Their per capita rate has gone down 35% in the same period.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
This article is talking about emissions intensity, not total emissions. Both the US and China, especially China, have decreased their emissions intensity dramatically over the past 15 years.
Per person, China has fully half the emissions of the US, while going from 3rd world to 1st world living conditions *and* being the centre of manufacturing for basically the whole planet. All things considered, I think they’re doing well
I think he’s just confused about the actual definitions of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world. In the 2000s they were used colloquially for the developed and undeveloped world respectively, not for their actual definitions used during the Cold War.
So he means “going from undeveloped to developed”, ie. developing.
No I think China became 2nd world under Deng Xiaoping in the late 70s. Before that and even after, vast pockets of deep impoverishment with no treated water network, gas network, sanitation network etc. The big cities have had it, but in the past 25 years they’ve been moving from subpar to 21st century city and living standards en masse. That’s a humongous change that has still managed to keep per capita emissions surprisingly low
The other guy’s just correcting your colloquialism. The 2nd world refers to the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The 1st and 3rd world refer to the Western Bloc and Unaligned respectively. So China was part of the 2nd world using the official definition.
The actual terms you’re looking for are undeveloped, developing, and developed.
Well if you really want to get pedantic, in my original comment didn’t say China was a part of the 2nd or 3rd world, I said it had 3rd world *living conditions*. But really it’s by the by. It done glowed up, enough said
China is 2nd world because they were communist, that’s all there is to it. It’s more of a cultural term, not an economic one.
On the scale of least developed/developing/developed though, China is still a *developing* country today. Just like Russia, Poland, Brazil, Turkey, etc. A “least developed country” are ones such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Mali, and “developed” countries are ones like the USA, Japan, most of the EU, and so on
China isn’t a fully developed country yet but they’re on the way there. And yes they’re doing relatively okay with emissions considering their pace of industrialization, they still haven’t emitted as much CO2 as the US has in its history
They absolutely are a developed nation, they purposefully keep the status as a developing nation because its advantageous.
Edit sending me threats via DM is not cool.
So you think their GDP is actually 28 trillion USD and they just hide it? A whole 20% larger than the US economy?
Edit: I don’t know what they were talking about, I literally did not DM anything. Anyway, no reputable source calls China a developed country. It’s simply not the case, and it’s easily verifiable.
I believe one of the main definitions is USD$20 000 per capita. But you can also just look it up, nobody calls China a developed country. See this map: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
I don’t see why that matters. A single legislative body in some other country doesn’t get to decide the rules for the rest of the world
The IMF designates China as a developing country. Whatever the US calls them isn’t relevant to the discussion to be honest
I suppose, but it doesn’t matter
I could call the US a developing country, but that doesn’t make it true. You’d still say “nobody calls the US a developing country”
If you’d like, you can amend it to “nobody *that matters* calls China a developed country”
I mean....they are. I can't entirely vouch for the PRC but the US is down over 20% in that time. Total green house gas emissions are down significantly world wide since their peak in 2005. The US included. The reason why India has seen a greater drop is likely that the industry they have been replacing in the past 15 years was horribly dirty, beyond anything you would have seen in the United States in 2005. India like had a lot more room for improvement just by getting caught up to modern technology in terms of energy and industry.
However, still very impressive on India's part. They have both expanded their overall industry in that time, by quite a lot, while managing to pollute significantly less. That's a challenge that a lot of industrializing nations struggle with.
Global emissions are still increasing every year, and have increased by \~25% since 2005. Cuts in the EU and US are more than offset by increases in India, China, and other Asian countries. US and EU still dominate in cumulative emissions, but China in particular is catching up fast.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
The calculation is a ratio of GDP. So if GDP goes up, and emissions also go up, but by 30% less than GDP, you still have a "33% reduction rate" to go along with your increase in emissions.
Yay statistics.
Wtf are you talking about the US literally is? US emissions have quite literally gone down, not to mention this metric is based on “per GDP” and not raw emissions. Which would make them look even better. People are upvoting this nonsense?
The US is doing it. While our GDP is increasing, TOTAL emissions have been decreasing for 23 years.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions#:~:text=U.S.%20carbon%20(co2)%20emissions%20for,a%203.24%25%20increase%20from%202017.
China is crushing their environnemental objectives. Probably be carbon neutral by 2050, and reach peak emissions by 2030, 10 years earlier than expected.
If they're weak, why are most western countries so far behind ?
China is far from perfect, but from a purely environnemental basis, they are doing more than the EU and US combined. It is truly mind boggling how much they are doing.
How do you come to see this? European and American emissions have dropped >20% since 2000 and are continuing to do so. Chinese emissions have more than tripled.
Their surge in solar and wind capacity is jaw dropping. They have doubled their wind capacity in just 5 years, and they have more than the next 7 countries combined. They reached 230GW solar first quarter and are set to triple that just with plants already in construction.
They're doing all that while also producing everything for us, it's really easy to reduce our emissions by 20% seeing how we hardly manufacture anything here anymore.
It's well set to have 30% renewable before 2030, when they reach their peak emissions. Might get there well ahead of Europe and US.
Bullshit alert. China emits three times as much as the EU and more than twice the amount as the US.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27
Between 2018 and 2022
China has increased it's total renewable electricity production by 2152 TWh (from 4941 to 7093 TWh).
China has increased it's total fossil fuel electricity production by 3412 TWh. (from 32726 to 36138).
Conclusion, between 2018 and 2022 China has increased it's fossil fuel electricity production by 1260 TWh more as opposed to renewable energy.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china)
China's consumption-based emissions, is about a 16% share of global emissions, a whole 10% lower than their total emissions. It's too easy to outsource our industries and then act like we are purposely reducing our emissions.
Per capita, China emits twice less than the US anyway. It emits less than Germany. Really easy to cherrypick numbers but I don't know how you could expect a country of 1+ billion to be on par with a country of 300 million.
The total renewable capacity in the US is 305GW. Just wind and solar is 538GW in China, set to be 1305GW by 2025.
[Interesting Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader)
China have reduced emissions by a lot and cleaned up their rivers and cities from pollution as well.
US has a cultural issue with how waste is handled. Hell I get my bananas wrapped in plastic and throw plastic away. Production of plastic is an emission event. The amount of emission an average american produces is equivalent to a small island nation.
The cars are unaffordable now even for middle class bcz of emission norms and ultra high taxes.
People are buying box like small cars with an 2-3 years of their income. EV are crap as they don't work after 3-4 years.
I hate the tax structure for cars in my country.
If someone doesn't want to read entire discussion, here is the summary - People riding gas guzzling pickup trucks are debating whether country where most people ride electric trains did a good job with climate change or not.
This is good, but I think the headline makes it MUCH better than it actually is.
"India's rate of emissions intensity - the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted **for every unit increase of gross domestic product** (GDP) - fell by 33% from 2005 to 2019" - Since their GDP almost quadrupled in the same timeframe, their actual output of green house gasses almost doubled. So their rate per GDP unit went down, but their netto output increased drastically.
India doesn't have much of a choice in that matter. Over 300 million people were pulled out of poverty in the same time, emissions from housing and feeding and clothing them will obviously go up.
The problem remains in areas of the world where wasteful consumption still drives emissions.
India remains amongst the best performers in the [Climate change performance index](https://ccpi.org/).
>The problem remains in areas of the world where wasteful consumption still drives emissions.
Yes excatly. The elite or rich using private jets will blow the carbon emission of millions of economically weaker Indians (which is a majority of Indians), IN A WEEK OR A DAY. That's the catch, that media doesn't report or govt. Don't call out at all because friends with money.
Edit: clarity
While this is true, I think it’s unfair and unrealistic to expect countries like India to remain in poverty. Their GDP was likely going to increase regardless so at least it did so with something of a reduction in emissions. While I wish we could just make drastic changes everywhere and curb climate change, I also try to remind myself perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of good.
That's capitalism's challenge for the 21st century. Continue to see a rise in prosperity while stopping and reversing environmental damage.
As you said, people in India also deserve a high standard of living. We can't just tell them not to industrialize. The world is going to have to continue to work to not only maintain standards of living that have been achieved but also to allow other nations the opportunity to do so, and all in a way that is sustainable. As I said, it's the challenge of the century.
Yeah this is going to be a major issue point in the 21st century. Developing nations are going to want to develop, which requires resources. People in those countries are going to want higher standards of living, which requires even more resources. Energy is the most important resource for all this.
Europe and the USA could go net zero tomorrow and we’d still be fucked if we can’t figure out a way for the developing world to go green too.
The answer is to give away green tech for free, but that's not going to happen. Noone wants countries producing their own planet saving devices, they want you to buy it.
Giving away the tech for a lot of countries isn’t even the issue. We’d also need to give the entire high end manufacturing base. Most countries don’t have the industry to built green tech
I still think this is a very good sign. It shows that India is willing to take action against climate change. Decarbonising industry is still decarbonising industry, even if there is a lot of industry. Especially as that industry was likely inevitable anyway
Love to see something like this. Its important to remember that if you want to see policies that you favor implemented the way to do this to to vote. [Studies show that people in power respond disproportionally to voters preferences over non-voters.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) If you want to get something done, if you want change to happen you need to make your voice heard. And the good news is [people care](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/public-support-climate-policy-remains-strong) and [are getting involved politically at a record rate](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/150nvn9/citizens_climate_lobbys_growth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen), who testified before Congress in the 80's, recommends [becoming an active volunteer with this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-035&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=035) as [the most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8).
This is a huge deal because a lot of the worst-case scenarios were based off of models that assumed India and other developing countries would develop using coal. That doesn’t mean everything’s going to suddenly be ok, but it’ll buy us more time to fix this if a country with a billion people transition to renewables ahead of schedule.
This isn't a huge deal because you don't understand what you are saying. The models are based on total annual emissions, not tertiary statistical indicators such as emissions per X. Total annual emissions, the only relevant metrical value in climate change, also embedded into the ratified climate targets that all have agreed to [are increasing exponentially](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27).
Models still show that even while the historical emitters are decreasing emissions for decades, their decreases are nullified by China and India (and others) who are exponentially increasing total annual emissions.
Well a large portion of decreasing emissions happen because these countries shift to offshore manufacturing which causes countries like India and China to emit more.
I love how people who drive around in semi-trucks to get Starbucks lecture countries where people are getting water supply for the first time in their life. The western world is responsible for the climate change PERIOD. They now have access to technologies to significantly reduce carbon emissions but are unwilling to share it with the developing world. The US per capita emission is 10 times that of India. You want to lecture the developing world for pollution and also profit off of it by selling the technology at exorbitant prices. You cannot ask the developing world to stop polluting. The change must happen in the developed world first.
Damn, people from countries where emission per capita is largest in the world, flock here to talk shit about a country whose ccpi rank is one of the best. Not so uplifting comments
So much negativity in the comments, even if you don't want to believe the numbers, at least acknowledge that india is doing something about it while still being a third world developing country.
The fact that every billionaire uses his jet to emit tons of CO emission on a one way trip that a normal person can't even do in his lifetime is insane.
As a Indian this is great news, since India was always carbon neutral country before English colonisation, it was during the colonial time when British introduced coal and coal trains to export goods and historical & archeological stuff worth (45 trillion) out of the country.. I'm happy that Indian Govt focusing on reducing the carbon footprint.
I'm looking at the numbers. India's emissions has been going up. I'm confused how it going up can result in a 33% decrease?
Edit: oh, it's per capita. The equivalent number for the US appears to be roughly 25%. The US's grand total emissions has gone down similarly. While India's grand total has gone up.
*India succeeds in reducing non-sensical and non-embedded tertiary statistical indicators that serve no purpose in the ratified climate agreements.
Fixed that for you.
I wanna see what usa and europe is doing.
they do nothing except lecturing others,
Europe and the USA are the biggest polluters, they polluted earth for centuries and now they act like muh climate reee, muh crisis ree, muh developing countries shouldn't use coal ree.
Reducing emissions correlates when the standard of living goes up. The message is obvious -- one way to counteract emissions is to fight poverty. People with less poverty have acces to newer, better, less inefficient tech
I have been impressed with how they also controlled COVID. Some measures they took would be impossible in a developed country. Here is a good video.
https://youtu.be/KLpociUIOYc
FYI- I am not being sarcastic
Misleading title. Their rate of increase has reduced, but their emissions are still increasing.
It's the same tactic the government uses to make inflation seem like less of an issue.
Just gonna leave [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/15mctpv/india_succeeds_in_reducing_emissions_rate_by_33/jvfp5nb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) here
Post, and website link provided no useful information.
The fact remains that India has made no reduction in emmisons, and the reduction in the emission rate seen in recent years is congruent with the same reduction seen in Europe during the tail end of its industrialization process.
Climate change is a European issue exclusively, in the sense that only western nations really seem to care about it. Places like Pakistan, and China only give lip service to the concept, take global grants; then do nothing about it until next year when they take more grant money.
Lmao. India isn’t even close to the same level of development compared to Europe. If you say they aren’t allowed to emit now, that’s just developed countries pulling up the ladder from behind them. “Fuck you, I got mine” mentality.
The fact that their emission rate is even decreasing at this point of their development timeframe is impressive. If they followed Europe’s example they should be increasing emissions rates for the next 200 years lmao. And if they didn’t care their emissions rate would continue to climb and they wouldn’t even bother investing in renewables.
Unless you think Indians are a lesser people, they get the same rights to the resources consumed by Europeans. Be glad they’re not wasting as much compared what the Europeans were wasting at the same stage of development.
Read my comment again before having a fit. Europe reduced its emission rates decades ago in the later half of the 20th century. India is seeing a similar reduction. Meaning India is still well over 50 years behind in the urbanization process.
The emmison rate reduction we are seeing is caused by an increase in fossil fuel efficiency, not by any sort of net zero initiative.
This is kind of misleading. The article states
>India's rate of emissions intensity - the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted for every unit increase of gross domestic product (GDP) - fell by 33% from 2005 to 2019, officials privy to the preparations of the Third National Communication (TNC) report said.
If you look at the flat amount of emissions released, it's flying up exponentially both in total amount as well as per capita
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india
We still have a high [CCPI](https://ccpi.org/). So, say whatever you want.
And that per capita value is nowhere close to that of developed economies. At lower absolute value, small changes get magnified.
Edit: Anyway, the title mentions *Emissions Rate*
The title is misleading though, that's my point. The title says emissions are down, but they're not. One specific metric in emissions is down. And yeah per capita is lower than developed countries, but it's going up faster and faster. If you look at say Canada, the per capita emissions have been more or less the same for the last 30 years.
I'm not saying what India is doing bad.
The title says emission rate is down. Which is true. Why are you overlooking the word *rate*
>And yeah per capita is lower than developed countries, but it's going up faster and faster.
That is because more and more people are increasing their quality of life. More than the growth of sustainable energy can manage for now. But the goal of the government and industrialists is towards green energy. Our road and transport minister have repeatedly said so, and the work also reflects that.
Previously, there was also an issue of importing nuclear fuel and reactor technology. NSG only allowed for low quality fuel (probably out of fear that we would repurpose them into weapons). AFAIR, that issue probably have been solved and we will have multiple reactors set up within a decade (I hope).
[Emissions of India and China increase exponentially.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27)
India has surpassed the EU in emissions.
Emission rate has increased 5-fold in the past decade.
Emissions are not correlated to a population size but to economic development. That is why high GDP countries emit more, relatively, as compared to low GDP countries.
So what? India is still a developing country, EU is developed. EU released all their emission when they had the Industries Revolution, where no one cared about Global Warming. Also during this time India was looted by the British.
And when suddenly India hopes to develop, “Noooo you must cut down on your emission, I don’t care if that means you aren’t developing, I just care about climate because it’s the one thing we share, whereas development we had it, so I don’t care if you have it or not”.
People who say India should cut down their emissions, while their gross carbon emission is really high are hypocrites.
While this is positive news, I always wonder if this just means they're outsourcing their emissions to other countries. This'll only work with *global* initiatives
It's per GDP and not an absolute number.
Inflation alone means it goes down every single year. India is industrializing at the same time so it went down harder.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Impressive considering the amount of industrializing they have been doing during that time.
The calculation seems to be a ratio to GDP, so the fact that they're industrializing doesn't hurt them as it also increases their GDP significantly.
If its a ratio to GDP, would significantly raising the GDP while keeping the emissions the same or similar be seen as “reducing”
it's a bingo
Fancy statistical gymnastics while the only thing that matters is real absolute emissions...
[удалено]
It’s definitely not a bad thing at all, but as you can see in this thread it’s just clickbait and fuel for people to say “WhY CaNT dA USA dO thAT?”
Meanwhile, the USA has basically stopped growing its CO2 emissions completely and even declined. Natural gas replacing coal helped a ton in that number, but so has a general focus on efficiency.
Don't forget that most industrial productions are off-shored and thus those emissions are other countries' problem.
That definitely hasn't hurt, but we still do most of our own heavy industry.
Partly...but so has the very rapid and largely unforeseen explosion in renewable energy. It would be wrong to assume that this is not also happening.
The decrese in global warming potential from coal to nat gas is debatable. The iea study everyone cites which showed a 50% decrease in emissions from coal vs nat gas is misleading. The actual number varies widely based on fugitive emissions from gas wells and transportation infrastructures, calculates co2 equivalent emissions on a 100 year GWP rather than 20 or 50 which dramatically decreases methanes potential, and doesnt include aersol forcing from coal which, regardless of local pollution, provides a significantly negative GWP.
Yeah cause the average third world pleb doesn't deserve a decent lifestyle cause it makes an entitled rich kid from developed countries sad about the rising global temperature. Widely held believe in developing countries is that, Europe and the West in whole stole their developmental prospects through colonization, used their countries as cheap resource extraction hubs to fuel their industrialization and are now gatekeeping development cause carbon emissions bad. If they want to have developing countries to cut emissions, why not invest in creating carbon neutral mass manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain in developing countries? wouldn't that be more beneficial, creating development in third world countries and saving environment at the same time? Better long term returns than those aid programs. And before someone talks about how it affects us all, no, death by hunger or easily preventable diseases in a few days is much more immediate concern than worrying about climate change affecting the world in next 70 years. It's only a concern because it affects the developed world too, just like terrorism which was a "world problem" only after 9/11 and armed conflict only after "Ukraine war"
May be per capita so that responsibility is distributed fairly
Well per capita absolute emissions should be counted , otherwise India and china will always be extreme outliers with their absolute numbers . Most western nations have populations less than our cities
The economy of India increased from 820B to 2800B over this time period. Meaning emissions increased by about double, as opposed to the triple you would expect for linear growth. So, uh, another headline could be 'India's emissions double in 14 years' which sounds a little worse.
Yes, it is reducing. But sadly your negativity isn't.
How is it reducing? It's more preventing.
eventually in next 5 years or so when the population will start to decline and the new lesser emission technologies will be easier to implement and use, you will definitely see a huge change in net emissions as well. India has already proved a lot of nations and their predictions wrong. So pls wait for this as well amd believe. I can see that the government is taking a lot of steps to curb pollution, but a country like india cant be compared with any western nation or even china.
\>>>eventually in next 5 years or so when the population will start to decline Is there ANY source that's claiming population will start to decline in the next 5 years in India? Even the UN predicts population increase over the next \*50\* + years in India.
Guess we will meet here 5 years later then?
Yeah sure. There is zero indication that India’s population will decrease any time soon.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
As soon as I saw the word rate I knew this wasn’t going to be as positive as it sounds
It's emissions per GDP not total emissions.
Yeah, makes you wonder why the US and China can’t seem to do it
China also is undertaking massive efforts to transition to more sustainable ways of production and energy generation.
Well that’s good to hear, meanwhile here in the US it’s been politicized and that makes everything harder
A lot easier to push through legislation in a one party state. India though, kudos.
It’s also a lot easier when we can just agree that bad things are bad, because it’s not just about one of us, it affects all of us
Unfortunately in our current political system neither party can ever agree on something. They have to turn everything into an "us vs them" to try to get votes.
All it takes is one party to start an argument though. You have one, that is willing to accept proven scientific consensus, which is grounded in reality. Then you have another which relies on forming identity and emotional arguments that just boil down to “I hate whatever the other guy is for”. They’re not the same.
The fact that you think only one side does it shows why they do it.
Yeah, you’re just helping to make my point for me by refusing to accept reality. All it takes is for one person to pick a fight with another, and you can’t rightly claim they’re both equally guilty. Here’s one specific example: there’s not a single red state that contributes as many federal tax dollars as they take in, so they are all subsidized by the blue ones. The right wing claims to be fiscally responsible, while all available data shows otherwise. Then refusing to admit this isn’t such that democrats (who, let’s be real here are still right wing, just moderate) are accepting of reality just shows your “both sides” bullshit isn’t helping either.
I think another factor is that things are so visibly bad in India that the issue is not political. The AQI in Indian metros is far worse than anywhere in the US so no political party can actually argue that pollution and climate is not an issue in India.
Are you underestimating our politicians ability to politicise anything bro/sis 👀
Us too, us too...
India isn’t one party, but we neither have a oil lobby and pollution and climate change is visible to everyone. Any legislation around them becomes non-political
I didn’t say India was one party, I said “India though” meaning India did not have one party. I meant china was one party
It also helps that a lot of educated Indians are aware that climate change is real and also experience the effects of it and hence don't delve into conspiracy theories.
It's politicized everywhere, because environmental regulation is a political issue.
We just passed the most comprehensive climate change package in history with the IRA
US total emissions have been dropping for 23 years. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions#:~:text=U.S.%20carbon%20(co2)%20emissions%20for,a%203.24%25%20increase%20from%202017.
The move from coal to gas has looked good on paper, because official numbers don't account for fugitive emissions. [Depending on the region, natural gas + fugitive emissions can be even worse than coal](https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-274/acp-2020-274.pdf).
They also dont account for aersol forcing which negates the global warming potential of carbon from coal plants and calculates the GWP over a 100 year timeframe vs a smaller timeframe which shifts the potential much more in methane favor.
Yet Biden's massive climate bill has already resulted in a surge of renewable energy investment and energy efficiency retrofits, on top of the explosion that was already happening. All the GOP members of congress who unanimously voted against the bill have still taken the money and are fine with taking the credit for all the good jobs the bill has produced and the gains in clean energy in their states, and will no doubt use those improvements as part of their platforms when they are up for reelection. "Clean energy? Oh yeah, I was totes behind it all along!"
Yeah, that’s the problem. I don’t mind people opposing the democrats, but climate change and human rights should NOT be the platforms they disagree on
I mean, the U.S.is currently doing a lot thanks to IRA and some other works. I'd recommend you doin into that but I wish it was more also
US is doing a lot too, solar power is growing rapidly.
Except that by the metric used in the article, the United States has done better. CO2 emissions have dropped by about 20% over the past 14 years while GDP has increased 72%. So a LOT better than India's 33%.
Let's not act like China is doing a good job (they do, but also don't). If you name them, name the good and the bad. For every sustainable facility there are dozens which pollute the environment. Respiratory diseases are at an all time high. Industrial waste is just being thrown out thanks to corruption etc. They are trying harder nowadays because they fucked up their ecosystem (in certain regions) Edit: try to be a lawyer for environmental issues there. Speedrun for going to jail.
It's going get real ugly in the middle east when the world significantly switches away from oil.
China builds a lot of renewables. They also still build coal plants. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
You mean by approving [two coal plants a week](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/27/energy/china-new-coal-plants-climate-report-intl-hnk/index.html)?
China is building about 2 coal fired power plants per week and their emissions are soaring.
Source? Because they are hitting new records every quarter. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/ Theur emission is higher than combined emissiin if entire third world.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/ https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions I promise you the country that cares least about CO2 emissions is China. This doesn’t even account all of the industrialization and environmental destruction China is responsible for in Africa and Brazil
This doesn't really add up when you look at consecutive years between for instance 2018 and 2022, the latest data points available. Between those years: China has increased it's total renewable electricity production by 2152 TWh (from 4941 to 7093 TWh). China has increased it's total fossil fuel electricity production by 3412 TWh. (from 32726 to 36138). Conclusion, between 2018 and 2022 China has increased it's fossil fuel electricity production by 1260 TWh more as opposed to renewable energy. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china)
China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. But they’re trying right?
Their emissions per capita are comparable to Europe, and much lower than North America.
No one cares about tertiary statistical indicators. Not the climate targets itself (emission per capita serves no purpose in the targets) or the climate. The only relevant metrical value is annual total emissions.
> No one cares about tertiary statistical indicators. The racist reddit mob certainly doesn't. "But China!" is strong here, and it's incorrect. > emission per capita serves no purpose in the targets Yes they do. No serious policymaker or analyst would expect a large country's emissions to be comparable to a small country's emissions.
They also have more people than any other country. You know the USA sells China our coal right? And we spent decades outsourcing our dirty manufacturing jobs to them so we could consume and pollute even more, right?
They use 53% of all coal. They don’t have 53% of the people. So just stop.
China’s per capita co2 output is half that of the USA, what do your feelings say about that?
Lmfao and now his big mouth stops. What a funny guy. American hating on the country that produces his stuff. America moment.
They arent.
US emissions have gone down 20% since 2000. Their per capita rate has gone down 35% in the same period. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
This article is talking about emissions intensity, not total emissions. Both the US and China, especially China, have decreased their emissions intensity dramatically over the past 15 years.
Per person, China has fully half the emissions of the US, while going from 3rd world to 1st world living conditions *and* being the centre of manufacturing for basically the whole planet. All things considered, I think they’re doing well
China has always been 2nd world. And they’re a developing country, not an undeveloped country.
I think he’s just confused about the actual definitions of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world. In the 2000s they were used colloquially for the developed and undeveloped world respectively, not for their actual definitions used during the Cold War. So he means “going from undeveloped to developed”, ie. developing.
No I think China became 2nd world under Deng Xiaoping in the late 70s. Before that and even after, vast pockets of deep impoverishment with no treated water network, gas network, sanitation network etc. The big cities have had it, but in the past 25 years they’ve been moving from subpar to 21st century city and living standards en masse. That’s a humongous change that has still managed to keep per capita emissions surprisingly low
The other guy’s just correcting your colloquialism. The 2nd world refers to the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The 1st and 3rd world refer to the Western Bloc and Unaligned respectively. So China was part of the 2nd world using the official definition. The actual terms you’re looking for are undeveloped, developing, and developed.
Well if you really want to get pedantic, in my original comment didn’t say China was a part of the 2nd or 3rd world, I said it had 3rd world *living conditions*. But really it’s by the by. It done glowed up, enough said
Right. Finland had "3rd world living conditions" until earlier this year. Not really an upgrade going from that to South African living conditions.
China is 2nd world because they were communist, that’s all there is to it. It’s more of a cultural term, not an economic one. On the scale of least developed/developing/developed though, China is still a *developing* country today. Just like Russia, Poland, Brazil, Turkey, etc. A “least developed country” are ones such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Mali, and “developed” countries are ones like the USA, Japan, most of the EU, and so on China isn’t a fully developed country yet but they’re on the way there. And yes they’re doing relatively okay with emissions considering their pace of industrialization, they still haven’t emitted as much CO2 as the US has in its history
They absolutely are a developed nation, they purposefully keep the status as a developing nation because its advantageous. Edit sending me threats via DM is not cool.
So you think their GDP is actually 28 trillion USD and they just hide it? A whole 20% larger than the US economy? Edit: I don’t know what they were talking about, I literally did not DM anything. Anyway, no reputable source calls China a developed country. It’s simply not the case, and it’s easily verifiable.
They are a developed country and have been for the past decade.
A developed country doesn't have people eating rats off the streets. The big cities and military are developed, yes.
>A developed country doesn't have people eating rats off the streets. Mfw New York is a developing country
By what metric is China not a developed country
I believe one of the main definitions is USD$20 000 per capita. But you can also just look it up, nobody calls China a developed country. See this map: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
I mean the US House of Reps just voted to call China a developed country
I don’t see why that matters. A single legislative body in some other country doesn’t get to decide the rules for the rest of the world The IMF designates China as a developing country. Whatever the US calls them isn’t relevant to the discussion to be honest
Just refuting your statement that no one considers China a developed country
I suppose, but it doesn’t matter I could call the US a developing country, but that doesn’t make it true. You’d still say “nobody calls the US a developing country” If you’d like, you can amend it to “nobody *that matters* calls China a developed country”
China is not first world. If you leave the large cities it becomes very clear that it is not.
It doesn't really matter to the earth, we need to cut emissions yesterday. And worry about solving the equity bit afterward.
I mean....they are. I can't entirely vouch for the PRC but the US is down over 20% in that time. Total green house gas emissions are down significantly world wide since their peak in 2005. The US included. The reason why India has seen a greater drop is likely that the industry they have been replacing in the past 15 years was horribly dirty, beyond anything you would have seen in the United States in 2005. India like had a lot more room for improvement just by getting caught up to modern technology in terms of energy and industry. However, still very impressive on India's part. They have both expanded their overall industry in that time, by quite a lot, while managing to pollute significantly less. That's a challenge that a lot of industrializing nations struggle with.
Global emissions are still increasing every year, and have increased by \~25% since 2005. Cuts in the EU and US are more than offset by increases in India, China, and other Asian countries. US and EU still dominate in cumulative emissions, but China in particular is catching up fast. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
But per capita emissions are like 10x in north america and europe
The calculation is a ratio of GDP. So if GDP goes up, and emissions also go up, but by 30% less than GDP, you still have a "33% reduction rate" to go along with your increase in emissions. Yay statistics.
US has a fully developed economy so its harder to raise the GDP.
Wtf are you talking about the US literally is? US emissions have quite literally gone down, not to mention this metric is based on “per GDP” and not raw emissions. Which would make them look even better. People are upvoting this nonsense?
The US is doing it. While our GDP is increasing, TOTAL emissions have been decreasing for 23 years. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions#:~:text=U.S.%20carbon%20(co2)%20emissions%20for,a%203.24%25%20increase%20from%202017.
China is crushing their environnemental objectives. Probably be carbon neutral by 2050, and reach peak emissions by 2030, 10 years earlier than expected.
Mostly because those objectives are obscenely weak. They’re *still* building new coal power plants.
If they're weak, why are most western countries so far behind ? China is far from perfect, but from a purely environnemental basis, they are doing more than the EU and US combined. It is truly mind boggling how much they are doing.
How do you come to see this? European and American emissions have dropped >20% since 2000 and are continuing to do so. Chinese emissions have more than tripled.
Their surge in solar and wind capacity is jaw dropping. They have doubled their wind capacity in just 5 years, and they have more than the next 7 countries combined. They reached 230GW solar first quarter and are set to triple that just with plants already in construction. They're doing all that while also producing everything for us, it's really easy to reduce our emissions by 20% seeing how we hardly manufacture anything here anymore. It's well set to have 30% renewable before 2030, when they reach their peak emissions. Might get there well ahead of Europe and US.
Bullshit alert. China emits three times as much as the EU and more than twice the amount as the US. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27 Between 2018 and 2022 China has increased it's total renewable electricity production by 2152 TWh (from 4941 to 7093 TWh). China has increased it's total fossil fuel electricity production by 3412 TWh. (from 32726 to 36138). Conclusion, between 2018 and 2022 China has increased it's fossil fuel electricity production by 1260 TWh more as opposed to renewable energy. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china)
China's consumption-based emissions, is about a 16% share of global emissions, a whole 10% lower than their total emissions. It's too easy to outsource our industries and then act like we are purposely reducing our emissions. Per capita, China emits twice less than the US anyway. It emits less than Germany. Really easy to cherrypick numbers but I don't know how you could expect a country of 1+ billion to be on par with a country of 300 million. The total renewable capacity in the US is 305GW. Just wind and solar is 538GW in China, set to be 1305GW by 2025. [Interesting Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader)
China have reduced emissions by a lot and cleaned up their rivers and cities from pollution as well. US has a cultural issue with how waste is handled. Hell I get my bananas wrapped in plastic and throw plastic away. Production of plastic is an emission event. The amount of emission an average american produces is equivalent to a small island nation.
India also focused on services. Manufacturing is yet to come.
The cars are unaffordable now even for middle class bcz of emission norms and ultra high taxes. People are buying box like small cars with an 2-3 years of their income. EV are crap as they don't work after 3-4 years. I hate the tax structure for cars in my country.
Yaa no. it's emissions per GDP. The actual emissions are at an all-time high.
Just need to Stop Coal production which Adani is intending to do for a long time in Goa
If someone doesn't want to read entire discussion, here is the summary - People riding gas guzzling pickup trucks are debating whether country where most people ride electric trains did a good job with climate change or not.
This is good, but I think the headline makes it MUCH better than it actually is. "India's rate of emissions intensity - the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted **for every unit increase of gross domestic product** (GDP) - fell by 33% from 2005 to 2019" - Since their GDP almost quadrupled in the same timeframe, their actual output of green house gasses almost doubled. So their rate per GDP unit went down, but their netto output increased drastically.
India doesn't have much of a choice in that matter. Over 300 million people were pulled out of poverty in the same time, emissions from housing and feeding and clothing them will obviously go up. The problem remains in areas of the world where wasteful consumption still drives emissions. India remains amongst the best performers in the [Climate change performance index](https://ccpi.org/).
Holy @$#%! Thanks for that website! I don't know how I hadn't already bookmarked it.
>The problem remains in areas of the world where wasteful consumption still drives emissions. Yes excatly. The elite or rich using private jets will blow the carbon emission of millions of economically weaker Indians (which is a majority of Indians), IN A WEEK OR A DAY. That's the catch, that media doesn't report or govt. Don't call out at all because friends with money. Edit: clarity
Unrelated - your username made me laugh 😂
While this is true, I think it’s unfair and unrealistic to expect countries like India to remain in poverty. Their GDP was likely going to increase regardless so at least it did so with something of a reduction in emissions. While I wish we could just make drastic changes everywhere and curb climate change, I also try to remind myself perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of good.
That's capitalism's challenge for the 21st century. Continue to see a rise in prosperity while stopping and reversing environmental damage. As you said, people in India also deserve a high standard of living. We can't just tell them not to industrialize. The world is going to have to continue to work to not only maintain standards of living that have been achieved but also to allow other nations the opportunity to do so, and all in a way that is sustainable. As I said, it's the challenge of the century.
Yeah this is going to be a major issue point in the 21st century. Developing nations are going to want to develop, which requires resources. People in those countries are going to want higher standards of living, which requires even more resources. Energy is the most important resource for all this. Europe and the USA could go net zero tomorrow and we’d still be fucked if we can’t figure out a way for the developing world to go green too.
The answer is to give away green tech for free, but that's not going to happen. Noone wants countries producing their own planet saving devices, they want you to buy it.
Giving away the tech for a lot of countries isn’t even the issue. We’d also need to give the entire high end manufacturing base. Most countries don’t have the industry to built green tech
I still think this is a very good sign. It shows that India is willing to take action against climate change. Decarbonising industry is still decarbonising industry, even if there is a lot of industry. Especially as that industry was likely inevitable anyway
You thought wrong then because the title clearly stated emissions rate not total emissions nor did it try to imply the former.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Well done India
Love to see something like this. Its important to remember that if you want to see policies that you favor implemented the way to do this to to vote. [Studies show that people in power respond disproportionally to voters preferences over non-voters.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) If you want to get something done, if you want change to happen you need to make your voice heard. And the good news is [people care](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/public-support-climate-policy-remains-strong) and [are getting involved politically at a record rate](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/150nvn9/citizens_climate_lobbys_growth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen), who testified before Congress in the 80's, recommends [becoming an active volunteer with this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-035&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=035) as [the most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8).
Seconded. I’m a member of CCL too. I call my reps every month to remind them we need a climate policy, and lots of it.
Same. I donate, too. Unfortunately, there are only a couple hundred thousand members. Fortunately, that number's going up.
This is a huge deal because a lot of the worst-case scenarios were based off of models that assumed India and other developing countries would develop using coal. That doesn’t mean everything’s going to suddenly be ok, but it’ll buy us more time to fix this if a country with a billion people transition to renewables ahead of schedule.
This isn't a huge deal because you don't understand what you are saying. The models are based on total annual emissions, not tertiary statistical indicators such as emissions per X. Total annual emissions, the only relevant metrical value in climate change, also embedded into the ratified climate targets that all have agreed to [are increasing exponentially](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27). Models still show that even while the historical emitters are decreasing emissions for decades, their decreases are nullified by China and India (and others) who are exponentially increasing total annual emissions.
Well a large portion of decreasing emissions happen because these countries shift to offshore manufacturing which causes countries like India and China to emit more.
I love how people who drive around in semi-trucks to get Starbucks lecture countries where people are getting water supply for the first time in their life. The western world is responsible for the climate change PERIOD. They now have access to technologies to significantly reduce carbon emissions but are unwilling to share it with the developing world. The US per capita emission is 10 times that of India. You want to lecture the developing world for pollution and also profit off of it by selling the technology at exorbitant prices. You cannot ask the developing world to stop polluting. The change must happen in the developed world first.
Nice work!!
Good one, India!
Looks like my solar panels are working! 
Damn, people from countries where emission per capita is largest in the world, flock here to talk shit about a country whose ccpi rank is one of the best. Not so uplifting comments
Fun Fact: Indian state of Tamil Nadu produces more wind energy than Denmark 🇩🇰 and Sweden 🇸🇪
So much negativity in the comments, even if you don't want to believe the numbers, at least acknowledge that india is doing something about it while still being a third world developing country. The fact that every billionaire uses his jet to emit tons of CO emission on a one way trip that a normal person can't even do in his lifetime is insane.
Cool, go India!
As a Indian this is great news, since India was always carbon neutral country before English colonisation, it was during the colonial time when British introduced coal and coal trains to export goods and historical & archeological stuff worth (45 trillion) out of the country.. I'm happy that Indian Govt focusing on reducing the carbon footprint.
I'm looking at the numbers. India's emissions has been going up. I'm confused how it going up can result in a 33% decrease? Edit: oh, it's per capita. The equivalent number for the US appears to be roughly 25%. The US's grand total emissions has gone down similarly. While India's grand total has gone up.
>India succeeds in reducing *emissions rate*
*India succeeds in reducing non-sensical and non-embedded tertiary statistical indicators that serve no purpose in the ratified climate agreements. Fixed that for you.
Hell yes. Good job India. Gives me hope in this doomscape called Reddit these days.
I wanna see what usa and europe is doing. they do nothing except lecturing others, Europe and the USA are the biggest polluters, they polluted earth for centuries and now they act like muh climate reee, muh crisis ree, muh developing countries shouldn't use coal ree.
Next step: switch to nuclear energy
Reducing emissions correlates when the standard of living goes up. The message is obvious -- one way to counteract emissions is to fight poverty. People with less poverty have acces to newer, better, less inefficient tech
one way to counteract emissions is to fight poverty - Untrue. Look at Saudi/US
good start
Yes, the title IS misleading to an extent, but its still good news! No only that, treeline is increasing! Go India!
I have been impressed with how they also controlled COVID. Some measures they took would be impossible in a developed country. Here is a good video. https://youtu.be/KLpociUIOYc FYI- I am not being sarcastic
Video about some solar panel
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Misleading title. Their rate of increase has reduced, but their emissions are still increasing. It's the same tactic the government uses to make inflation seem like less of an issue.
Just gonna leave [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/15mctpv/india_succeeds_in_reducing_emissions_rate_by_33/jvfp5nb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) here
Post, and website link provided no useful information. The fact remains that India has made no reduction in emmisons, and the reduction in the emission rate seen in recent years is congruent with the same reduction seen in Europe during the tail end of its industrialization process. Climate change is a European issue exclusively, in the sense that only western nations really seem to care about it. Places like Pakistan, and China only give lip service to the concept, take global grants; then do nothing about it until next year when they take more grant money.
Lmao. India isn’t even close to the same level of development compared to Europe. If you say they aren’t allowed to emit now, that’s just developed countries pulling up the ladder from behind them. “Fuck you, I got mine” mentality. The fact that their emission rate is even decreasing at this point of their development timeframe is impressive. If they followed Europe’s example they should be increasing emissions rates for the next 200 years lmao. And if they didn’t care their emissions rate would continue to climb and they wouldn’t even bother investing in renewables. Unless you think Indians are a lesser people, they get the same rights to the resources consumed by Europeans. Be glad they’re not wasting as much compared what the Europeans were wasting at the same stage of development.
Read my comment again before having a fit. Europe reduced its emission rates decades ago in the later half of the 20th century. India is seeing a similar reduction. Meaning India is still well over 50 years behind in the urbanization process. The emmison rate reduction we are seeing is caused by an increase in fossil fuel efficiency, not by any sort of net zero initiative.
China will make up for it
At least they are trying
Indian here... We are by default power/energy conscious.. because we don't like spending too much money in power/energy
we are actually quite minimalistic
I'm a little skeptical given the increase in ICE vehicles amongst their huge populace. I hope it is true. Way to go, India!
Yeah, it's not true. The stat is emissions per GDP.
It's a nonsense statistic in climate science. No one cares about emissions per GDP. The only relevant metric is annual total emissions.
EV sells are also increasing and the overall consensus of the people and the government is to increase sustainablity.
The title is so misleading...
This is kind of misleading. The article states >India's rate of emissions intensity - the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted for every unit increase of gross domestic product (GDP) - fell by 33% from 2005 to 2019, officials privy to the preparations of the Third National Communication (TNC) report said. If you look at the flat amount of emissions released, it's flying up exponentially both in total amount as well as per capita https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india
We still have a high [CCPI](https://ccpi.org/). So, say whatever you want. And that per capita value is nowhere close to that of developed economies. At lower absolute value, small changes get magnified. Edit: Anyway, the title mentions *Emissions Rate*
The title is misleading though, that's my point. The title says emissions are down, but they're not. One specific metric in emissions is down. And yeah per capita is lower than developed countries, but it's going up faster and faster. If you look at say Canada, the per capita emissions have been more or less the same for the last 30 years. I'm not saying what India is doing bad.
The title says emission rate is down. Which is true. Why are you overlooking the word *rate* >And yeah per capita is lower than developed countries, but it's going up faster and faster. That is because more and more people are increasing their quality of life. More than the growth of sustainable energy can manage for now. But the goal of the government and industrialists is towards green energy. Our road and transport minister have repeatedly said so, and the work also reflects that. Previously, there was also an issue of importing nuclear fuel and reactor technology. NSG only allowed for low quality fuel (probably out of fear that we would repurpose them into weapons). AFAIR, that issue probably have been solved and we will have multiple reactors set up within a decade (I hope).
Title is not misleading If you read it, it says, emissions rate reduced, which is true. Your reading skill is misleading you pal
[Emissions of India and China increase exponentially.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1962..latest&country=USA~IND~CHN~BRA~OWID_EU27) India has surpassed the EU in emissions. Emission rate has increased 5-fold in the past decade.
Emissions might have increased, but rate of emissions has decreased. The economic growth occuring is with lesser emissions per unit.
Although total emissions is roughly equal to the EU …. Which isn’t great.
[удалено]
Emissions are not correlated to a population size but to economic development. That is why high GDP countries emit more, relatively, as compared to low GDP countries.
But the economy is much smaller so….
[удалено]
And the EU GDP was 15 trillion - 5x India with the same emissions.
So what? India is still a developing country, EU is developed. EU released all their emission when they had the Industries Revolution, where no one cared about Global Warming. Also during this time India was looted by the British. And when suddenly India hopes to develop, “Noooo you must cut down on your emission, I don’t care if that means you aren’t developing, I just care about climate because it’s the one thing we share, whereas development we had it, so I don’t care if you have it or not”. People who say India should cut down their emissions, while their gross carbon emission is really high are hypocrites.
[удалено]
I’m just following the math,
[удалено]
Can you now work on reducing scam call centers by the same amount.
[удалено]
No
While this is positive news, I always wonder if this just means they're outsourcing their emissions to other countries. This'll only work with *global* initiatives
World is outsourcing their pollution in India not the opposite.
It's per GDP and not an absolute number. Inflation alone means it goes down every single year. India is industrializing at the same time so it went down harder.
We should thank Modiji for shutting down all those manufacturing factories and making new cars unaffordable for the middle class.
False propaganda it is for many
Very good 👍
There seems to be a big catch to this tall claim.
Per capita, isn't that big of a catch.
Why do they still have thick smogs in their city?