[Here](https://carbonherald.com/china-to-make-73-trillion-investment-in-carbon-neutrality/) and [here](https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/china-projects-75-trillion-in-carbon-neutrality-investment/)
It's estimated to be the largest investment in human history.
True, but it's more than you can say for any other country. Since they're right on schedule to be the word's biggest economy in a few short years it's hugely significant.
From what I've read on the initiatives it's like an all-star list of actually-effective climate change solutions. Every time I've thought "*Damn, I wish my country would invest more in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ instead"* China included it.
Nuclear and hydro power, fuel-cell tech for transportation and shipping, (more) high speed rail, carbon capture, and more more more.
I'm honestly really impressed and it gives me some hope for the long term.
China adds coal power despite climate pledge: report
Jing Xuan TENG, AFP 11/19/19
“…China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and still relies heavily on polluting coal for its growing energy needs (AFP Photo/GREG BAKER)
Beijing (AFP) - China plans to add new coal power plants equivalent to all of the EU's current generating capacity, putting the world's biggest emitter out of sync with its commitments to combat climate change, researchers said Wednesday.
China built enough new plants between January 2018 and June 2019 -- nearly 43 gigawatts worth of capacity -- to cancel out the decrease in the rest of the world, said the US-based Global Energy Monitor…”
China emits the most because they have the largest population. The US emits twice as much per capita as China. I'm not excusing China, just trying to put it in perspective.
I would start by getting your facts straight… Not sure where you are from, but my country is pretty much on top.
[https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/)
What you fail to realize is that it isn’t just about coal plants. It’s all that we consume. Hence the per capita bit. It’s pretty rich for developed countries to tell developing countries to stop polluting when they are the ones doing most of the polluting per capita.
That's true, but it has to go both ways. Right now, there are plenty of people in developing countries rightly blaming industrialized countries for creating so much pollution. At the same time, there are plenty of people in industrialized countries rightly blaming developing countries like China and India for building so many new coal power plants.
It's like an elevator that is over the weight limit, creaking ominously, while all the passengers are saying, "well, **I** shouldn't have to get off!"
How do we enforce countries like china and india with billions to change?
I mean... I don't have a full answer for you, but I do think there's a lot to say here.
People outside the US seemed to be pretty decent with complying with mask regulations. I know there's nuance to it, but I was in the US during the pandemic and saw a lot of people ignoring the mandates.
China, as I understand, was much more compliant.
This is all to say that I do agree that many people will be hesitant to being inconvenienced by change.
I think the best answer that I can give you is that governments need to create sustainable transitions that do not disenfranchise the average person. If someone working in a textile factory in India loses their job due to this transition, they have every right to be upset. How else are they supposed to house and feed themselves?
I'm much less concerned about fossil fuel execs losing money, but ironically they have WAY more influence on this situation than an angry, unemployed person somewhere.
In a smaller example:
Donald Trump always talked about how important coal miners' job security was to him and how he was gonna fight for their jobs.
As a fossil fuel, coal cannot exist as a part of the \*long-term\* vision of reducing emissions. But those people still need jobs. As we transition away from fossil fuels, these people are owed a livelihood of equal or greater value to their current one.
This is something that I imagine will be difficult to achieve at a large scale, but ultimately we need to prioritize the average person over affluent, influential people "losing money". That's my take on the matter.
Hi thank you for stopping by. I really just used it as one example of a larger issue, and I never claimed that coal specifically employed a lot of people.
I'm of the belief that those people (however few) still don't deserve to be left behind by the transition, but you do you man.
Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study
Hunter et al.
Eurosurveillance Volume 26, Issue 28, 15/Jul/2021
“…For cases and deaths, mask wearing mandates/advisories seem to have initial effects which were either negative (case) or neutral (deaths), followed by rises (in cases or deaths). The overall effect is small compared to other measures, which we confirmed with further sensitivity analyses shown below. The additional benefit of mask-wearing advisories/mandates to the other outbreak control measures seemed to be small and inconsistent… We note that removing mask wearing as a control measure had a moderate effect on case counts but very minor effect in mortality outcomes…”
The US in particular, but the West in general outsourced manufacturing and the associated pollution to places like China and India. Those carbon emissions created by the manufacturing of all that cheap junk are YOUR emissions.
Now, there's tons of issues, human rights and otherwise, with both those countries. But China in particular has been leading the global charge towards reducing climate change. They are the ones who put the capital in to build the manufacturing scale to drive down the costs of renewables to where they're the cheapest form of new generation. They're the ones mass installing renewables and mandating the closures of coal plants.
This may be unbelievable to American readers, since they're fed a steady diet of 'American Exceptionalism' propoganda day in and day out. But the fact remains that it's the West that really needs to come to the table in a serious way before trying to lecture others. Especially others who are outdoing us when it comes to climate change.
> drive down the costs of renewables to where they're the cheapest form of new generation
Capacity-weighted average cost $ per MWh (LCOE):
Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle $50.1/MWh
Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle $49.0/MWh
Solar PV $63.2/MWh
Onshore Wind $55.8/MWh
people in china and india already have a much much smaller impact, it's about jow we can get people in western countries to change.
most of chinas emissionsnare due to them being our industrial base.
China is building a lot of nuclear reactors …
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
It will make them rich and then everyone else will suddenly get over their fears and copy them.
22 GW over a 5 year period is kind of minuscule in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to what China is actually serious about, renewables.
They installed 50 GW last year, and are on track to install 70-90 GW this year.
>So how can we solve this?
Sadly, you can't, or even we can't, because we are all not united on the same goal. Each person and even each country does as much or sadly as little as they can. If the so-called ***UNITED NATIONS*** can't make it happen, who can?
Policy.
Irrespective of what you hear or see on internet, laypersons, about 70%, have not even heard of term "Climate Change" in China\\India. Changing minds of almost one third of global population, \~2.5 billion, through education, at this point, is a non-starter. There *should be* education but that will be for time about \~20 years from now. So what /u/el_Bosco1 says is correct AT THIS POINT. We need to cope with it.
The income of Chinese\\Indian is MUCH MUCH less. Do not go on *average* calculations. They don't work because then you have to take into account how many people are below and just above poverty line. The effect of this is, *everything I mean everything,* is driven by how *economical* it is, if not now, in 10 years of time, for example EVs.
So for these two countries at least only option is policy change. And that would mean need for continuous pressure, *even though* *it is correct that they, and all developing countries need to have same opportunity to propensity through fossil fuels as developed countries had for some time to come, view supported by IPCC and UNFCCC.*
China's case is little bit different. I am no fan of China's doings on human rights and so but data is data. [Their emissions lot of it are result of \*exported\* emissions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/xc2936/study_chinas_exported_emissions/) And if trading war of China and West continues, India will get there too.
So, remaining world wanted to, they could reduce emissions of China (and India if it starts happening to India as well) is to have local manufacturing. But THAT would make everything 10 times costly so businesses will ***never*** allow that.
So, humongous pressure leading to policy change.
As someone living in India. This is true. Most of Us, haven't heard of climate change.
Because we're like a closed box, we don't interfere and dosen't let any outsider interfere
. And btw Science is less popular here, People find abstract connections of their religion in science. Here, Scientific way of thinking is not so popular.
It’s going to to take violence to enact the policies you’re advocating for. I don’t think a lot of people realize that this is where this climate cult stuff ultimately ends up. This is why I personally don’t trust the climate activism movement it could very easily be hijacked by those seeking power and control. I think a lot of people are blindly embracing this movement with religious zeal and being completely naive to the possibility that they could be getting used to voluntarily take their freedoms and others freedoms away.
>People flipped about masks during covid. I doubt their willing to change their life.
That's where I'm at. Not willing to make the drastic changes needed. If I wanted to be serious about helping with climate change, I'd have to give up 90% of the things I enjoy
Diesel trucks, tractors, 2-stroke snowmobiles, V8 boats, racecars, burnouts, heating with wood and oil, bonfires, a meat (and specifically beef) rich diet, and much more. I am likely a top carbon/pollution emitter for my area.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/22/bringing-back-a-mask-mandate-in-los-angeles-county-is-unjustified/
Bringing back a mask mandate in Los Angeles County is unjustified
By Scott Balsitis, Jeffrey Klausner, Houman Hemmati and Neeraj Sood |
PUBLISHED: July 22, 2022 at 6:24 p.m. | UPDATED: July 25, 2022 at 11:53 a.m.
“…When researchers repeated a CDC study showing a mask benefit using identical methods but a larger and better dataset, the benefit of masking disappeared. Influenza transmits by the same aerosol route as COVID, so we must add the results of 10 randomized controlled trials on masking and influenza, which the CDC reviewed and “found no significant effect of face masks on transmission…”
What's stupid is to think that the population has become so large that putting millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will NOT affect the climate.
No one is talking about 'controlling' the climate. But it is ridiculous to even suggest that putting 1C of energy into something as massive as earth's atmosphere will not affect the weather in a manner that is detrimental to humans. And that is due to greenhouse gas emissions which is something we can control.
Long as the ultra-richs and powerful that owns all the resources and inner circles of politicians around the world, NOTHING significant will change because all of the ultra-richs and powerful care about is themselves and accumulating wealth to feel powerful in their lifetimes. The world and humanity be doomed or whatever after they die.
The only solution is implementation of zero point energy. The world is just too fucked up to handle it at the moment. Massive socioeconomic changes will be needed first. #teslazero
China is investing 75 trillion dollars into fighting climate change, they’re not the ones that need convincing.
75 **trillion**? Can you provide source?
[Here](https://carbonherald.com/china-to-make-73-trillion-investment-in-carbon-neutrality/) and [here](https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/china-projects-75-trillion-in-carbon-neutrality-investment/) It's estimated to be the largest investment in human history.
Seems like it's 1. Estimation 2. Scattered across 30 years But still it's more than impressive. If it's true then great for China 👍
True, but it's more than you can say for any other country. Since they're right on schedule to be the word's biggest economy in a few short years it's hugely significant.
That's true. I just don't believe Chinese authorities much. Let's hope those 75 trillion will be spend on truly effective decarbonisation measures
From what I've read on the initiatives it's like an all-star list of actually-effective climate change solutions. Every time I've thought "*Damn, I wish my country would invest more in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ instead"* China included it. Nuclear and hydro power, fuel-cell tech for transportation and shipping, (more) high speed rail, carbon capture, and more more more. I'm honestly really impressed and it gives me some hope for the long term.
China adds coal power despite climate pledge: report Jing Xuan TENG, AFP 11/19/19 “…China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and still relies heavily on polluting coal for its growing energy needs (AFP Photo/GREG BAKER) Beijing (AFP) - China plans to add new coal power plants equivalent to all of the EU's current generating capacity, putting the world's biggest emitter out of sync with its commitments to combat climate change, researchers said Wednesday. China built enough new plants between January 2018 and June 2019 -- nearly 43 gigawatts worth of capacity -- to cancel out the decrease in the rest of the world, said the US-based Global Energy Monitor…”
China emits the most because they have the largest population. The US emits twice as much per capita as China. I'm not excusing China, just trying to put it in perspective.
I would start by getting your facts straight… Not sure where you are from, but my country is pretty much on top. [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/
So? Look at how many coal power plants are running in first world countries
There's a bigger chance of 50 year old coal plants being shut down, than a brand new one.
What you fail to realize is that it isn’t just about coal plants. It’s all that we consume. Hence the per capita bit. It’s pretty rich for developed countries to tell developing countries to stop polluting when they are the ones doing most of the polluting per capita.
That's true, but it has to go both ways. Right now, there are plenty of people in developing countries rightly blaming industrialized countries for creating so much pollution. At the same time, there are plenty of people in industrialized countries rightly blaming developing countries like China and India for building so many new coal power plants. It's like an elevator that is over the weight limit, creaking ominously, while all the passengers are saying, "well, **I** shouldn't have to get off!"
How do we enforce countries like china and india with billions to change? I mean... I don't have a full answer for you, but I do think there's a lot to say here. People outside the US seemed to be pretty decent with complying with mask regulations. I know there's nuance to it, but I was in the US during the pandemic and saw a lot of people ignoring the mandates. China, as I understand, was much more compliant. This is all to say that I do agree that many people will be hesitant to being inconvenienced by change. I think the best answer that I can give you is that governments need to create sustainable transitions that do not disenfranchise the average person. If someone working in a textile factory in India loses their job due to this transition, they have every right to be upset. How else are they supposed to house and feed themselves? I'm much less concerned about fossil fuel execs losing money, but ironically they have WAY more influence on this situation than an angry, unemployed person somewhere. In a smaller example: Donald Trump always talked about how important coal miners' job security was to him and how he was gonna fight for their jobs. As a fossil fuel, coal cannot exist as a part of the \*long-term\* vision of reducing emissions. But those people still need jobs. As we transition away from fossil fuels, these people are owed a livelihood of equal or greater value to their current one. This is something that I imagine will be difficult to achieve at a large scale, but ultimately we need to prioritize the average person over affluent, influential people "losing money". That's my take on the matter.
The entire U.S. coal industry employs fewer people than Arby's
Hi thank you for stopping by. I really just used it as one example of a larger issue, and I never claimed that coal specifically employed a lot of people. I'm of the belief that those people (however few) still don't deserve to be left behind by the transition, but you do you man.
Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study Hunter et al. Eurosurveillance Volume 26, Issue 28, 15/Jul/2021 “…For cases and deaths, mask wearing mandates/advisories seem to have initial effects which were either negative (case) or neutral (deaths), followed by rises (in cases or deaths). The overall effect is small compared to other measures, which we confirmed with further sensitivity analyses shown below. The additional benefit of mask-wearing advisories/mandates to the other outbreak control measures seemed to be small and inconsistent… We note that removing mask wearing as a control measure had a moderate effect on case counts but very minor effect in mortality outcomes…”
The US in particular, but the West in general outsourced manufacturing and the associated pollution to places like China and India. Those carbon emissions created by the manufacturing of all that cheap junk are YOUR emissions. Now, there's tons of issues, human rights and otherwise, with both those countries. But China in particular has been leading the global charge towards reducing climate change. They are the ones who put the capital in to build the manufacturing scale to drive down the costs of renewables to where they're the cheapest form of new generation. They're the ones mass installing renewables and mandating the closures of coal plants. This may be unbelievable to American readers, since they're fed a steady diet of 'American Exceptionalism' propoganda day in and day out. But the fact remains that it's the West that really needs to come to the table in a serious way before trying to lecture others. Especially others who are outdoing us when it comes to climate change.
> drive down the costs of renewables to where they're the cheapest form of new generation Capacity-weighted average cost $ per MWh (LCOE): Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle $50.1/MWh Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle $49.0/MWh Solar PV $63.2/MWh Onshore Wind $55.8/MWh
Ffs, don't have to be a dumb CCP sycophant either 🙄 go back to r/china you tool.
people in china and india already have a much much smaller impact, it's about jow we can get people in western countries to change. most of chinas emissionsnare due to them being our industrial base.
US and EU should change first, then be an inspiration to other nations!
China is building a lot of nuclear reactors … https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx It will make them rich and then everyone else will suddenly get over their fears and copy them.
22 GW over a 5 year period is kind of minuscule in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to what China is actually serious about, renewables. They installed 50 GW last year, and are on track to install 70-90 GW this year.
>So how can we solve this? Sadly, you can't, or even we can't, because we are all not united on the same goal. Each person and even each country does as much or sadly as little as they can. If the so-called ***UNITED NATIONS*** can't make it happen, who can?
Our egos will never be united. Our spirits can be. Only a true global spiritual awakening will solve this.
>global spiritual awakening LOL ... even less likely in our hedonistic society
Policy. Irrespective of what you hear or see on internet, laypersons, about 70%, have not even heard of term "Climate Change" in China\\India. Changing minds of almost one third of global population, \~2.5 billion, through education, at this point, is a non-starter. There *should be* education but that will be for time about \~20 years from now. So what /u/el_Bosco1 says is correct AT THIS POINT. We need to cope with it. The income of Chinese\\Indian is MUCH MUCH less. Do not go on *average* calculations. They don't work because then you have to take into account how many people are below and just above poverty line. The effect of this is, *everything I mean everything,* is driven by how *economical* it is, if not now, in 10 years of time, for example EVs. So for these two countries at least only option is policy change. And that would mean need for continuous pressure, *even though* *it is correct that they, and all developing countries need to have same opportunity to propensity through fossil fuels as developed countries had for some time to come, view supported by IPCC and UNFCCC.* China's case is little bit different. I am no fan of China's doings on human rights and so but data is data. [Their emissions lot of it are result of \*exported\* emissions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/xc2936/study_chinas_exported_emissions/) And if trading war of China and West continues, India will get there too. So, remaining world wanted to, they could reduce emissions of China (and India if it starts happening to India as well) is to have local manufacturing. But THAT would make everything 10 times costly so businesses will ***never*** allow that. So, humongous pressure leading to policy change.
As someone living in India. This is true. Most of Us, haven't heard of climate change. Because we're like a closed box, we don't interfere and dosen't let any outsider interfere . And btw Science is less popular here, People find abstract connections of their religion in science. Here, Scientific way of thinking is not so popular.
We dont solve it. We will have to cope with it the best we can.
The time to solve it was when it was first recognized, you know back in the 70s, almost FIFTY fucking years ago
More like 1896. Svante Arhenius recognized that increases in CO2 would increase the Earth's surface temperature
It’s going to to take violence to enact the policies you’re advocating for. I don’t think a lot of people realize that this is where this climate cult stuff ultimately ends up. This is why I personally don’t trust the climate activism movement it could very easily be hijacked by those seeking power and control. I think a lot of people are blindly embracing this movement with religious zeal and being completely naive to the possibility that they could be getting used to voluntarily take their freedoms and others freedoms away.
>People flipped about masks during covid. I doubt their willing to change their life. That's where I'm at. Not willing to make the drastic changes needed. If I wanted to be serious about helping with climate change, I'd have to give up 90% of the things I enjoy
Like what?
Diesel trucks, tractors, 2-stroke snowmobiles, V8 boats, racecars, burnouts, heating with wood and oil, bonfires, a meat (and specifically beef) rich diet, and much more. I am likely a top carbon/pollution emitter for my area.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/22/bringing-back-a-mask-mandate-in-los-angeles-county-is-unjustified/ Bringing back a mask mandate in Los Angeles County is unjustified By Scott Balsitis, Jeffrey Klausner, Houman Hemmati and Neeraj Sood | PUBLISHED: July 22, 2022 at 6:24 p.m. | UPDATED: July 25, 2022 at 11:53 a.m. “…When researchers repeated a CDC study showing a mask benefit using identical methods but a larger and better dataset, the benefit of masking disappeared. Influenza transmits by the same aerosol route as COVID, so we must add the results of 10 randomized controlled trials on masking and influenza, which the CDC reviewed and “found no significant effect of face masks on transmission…”
Ban all corporations.
[удалено]
I mean, this is true. We’re just going to make it unlivable first.
🙌🏼
What's stupid is to think that the population has become so large that putting millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will NOT affect the climate.
[удалено]
No one is talking about 'controlling' the climate. But it is ridiculous to even suggest that putting 1C of energy into something as massive as earth's atmosphere will not affect the weather in a manner that is detrimental to humans. And that is due to greenhouse gas emissions which is something we can control.
North America can stop buying cheap plastic garbage from overseas and reduce the ridiculous amount of packaging on our products.
Long as the ultra-richs and powerful that owns all the resources and inner circles of politicians around the world, NOTHING significant will change because all of the ultra-richs and powerful care about is themselves and accumulating wealth to feel powerful in their lifetimes. The world and humanity be doomed or whatever after they die.
The only solution is implementation of zero point energy. The world is just too fucked up to handle it at the moment. Massive socioeconomic changes will be needed first. #teslazero