China has a high per captia co2 emissions than the EU by a significant margin. For all the “good” they’ve done in renewables they’ve done just as much damage expanding their non renewable power. Its sad that you fall for such obvious greenwashing I thought people of lemmy were more inteligent than that. The anti desertification is pretty much DOA since China is already struggling with water and the forest is artificial and monocultured. They’ve cut down forests to build factories, they zone factories to close to residential areas leading to cities with some of the lowest air quality in the world. They dont rotate crops and destory the soil nutrients, they dam up every river destroying downstream ecosystems, they pollute water systems that feel into their own villages. To act like they build solar panels out of a car for the environment is naive. They made the choice to ignore global efforts to reduce emissions should everyone be allowed to do that?
You’re looking at total emissions within the EU vs. total emissions within China compared to their respective populations. This is, frankly, a ridiculous way to look at emissions, considering neither country produces everything it consumes (though China is far closer). The EU has lower emissions per capita because it doesn’t produce much, and instead relies on imperialism and neocolonialism, importing much of what it consumes with little regard for environmental protections from the countries it consumes from. The actual net impact of a European is far higher than someone in China.
It’s odd that you accuse me of "greenwashing,* when you’re falling hook, line, and sinker for it. The EU pretends to be green by erasing the fact that it consumes far more per capita, with far worse of an environmental impact. It’s as simple as that. China’s expansion of non-renewables pales in comparison to its rising rates of green energy and electrification. China’s air quality is likewise rising rapidly. We do not live in 2004 any longer, yet your information comes straight from those eras.
It isn’t China that’s ignoring green initiatives, it’s the EU pretending like they care while still operating on imperialism and neocolonialism.
Yes, “per capita” going by total emissions within the respective countries and dividing it by the populace, not actually taking into account consumption and where that comes from. It’s incredibly ironic that you call correctly analyzing the greenwashing and imperialist apologia you did “cope” without engaging with any of what I said.
Why would consumption matter? China chooses what it wants to manufacturer. If China had better environmental standards and didnt just blast coal and dump into rivers then the EU would manufacturer more of its own goods. Thats a China fault and has nothing to do with the EU. I engaged with all of your cope you’re just bending yourself over backwards trying to defend this.
Consumption matters because it’s the actual, net impact of someone. The EU cannot produce what it needs anymore because they are imperialist, bank and industrial capital merged into monopoly long ago. Finance is what drives the EU, not production, and as a consequence it does not produce what it needs to survive. The EU depends on super-exploitation of foreign labor, neocolonialism to ensure access to raw materials, and greenwashes by erasing this dependency on the global south.
Imagine a landlord, saying that nobody needs to work to live because they simply own property. The problem with this is immediately clear, as long as there are landlords, there are tenants that they rely on, without the tenants there is no landlord, and these tenants must perform labor to pay their rent. It’s the same with the EU as the landlord, producers like China as the tenants, and emissions as labor. The EU erases its own dependency on emissions by pretending that they are independent from them.
As for China, they have far stronger environmental regulations than you seem to think. China today is lightyears ahead of the China of the 80s and 90s, which you seem trapped into picturing them as. China’s ecosocialist initiatives far exceed those of the EU, and matter far more because they produce what much of the world actually relies upon. Their per capita emissions are very low when compared to consumption, yet are still working to tackle climate change as best as they can. The EU essentially pushes their responsibilities onto others.
There’s no cope here, you just fundamentally do not seem to understand how greenwashing and imperialism work.
If we’re taking into account consumption then China is even worse. They are over half the worlds emissions. They should have a bigger focus on reducing that. Their eco positive initiatives are barely a drop in the bucket compared to all the damage they’ve done.
By individual consumption, China is doing well and getting better. You still have not grasped my point. China’s emissions are largely for the consumption of other countries, that these other countries rely on, and get to greenwash by simply not producing anything.
China has a high per captia co2 emissions than the EU by a significant margin. For all the “good” they’ve done in renewables they’ve done just as much damage expanding their non renewable power. Its sad that you fall for such obvious greenwashing I thought people of lemmy were more inteligent than that. The anti desertification is pretty much DOA since China is already struggling with water and the forest is artificial and monocultured. They’ve cut down forests to build factories, they zone factories to close to residential areas leading to cities with some of the lowest air quality in the world. They dont rotate crops and destory the soil nutrients, they dam up every river destroying downstream ecosystems, they pollute water systems that feel into their own villages. To act like they build solar panels out of a car for the environment is naive. They made the choice to ignore global efforts to reduce emissions should everyone be allowed to do that?
You’re looking at total emissions within the EU vs. total emissions within China compared to their respective populations. This is, frankly, a ridiculous way to look at emissions, considering neither country produces everything it consumes (though China is far closer). The EU has lower emissions per capita because it doesn’t produce much, and instead relies on imperialism and neocolonialism, importing much of what it consumes with little regard for environmental protections from the countries it consumes from. The actual net impact of a European is far higher than someone in China.
It’s odd that you accuse me of "greenwashing,* when you’re falling hook, line, and sinker for it. The EU pretends to be green by erasing the fact that it consumes far more per capita, with far worse of an environmental impact. It’s as simple as that. China’s expansion of non-renewables pales in comparison to its rising rates of green energy and electrification. China’s air quality is likewise rising rapidly. We do not live in 2004 any longer, yet your information comes straight from those eras.
It isn’t China that’s ignoring green initiatives, it’s the EU pretending like they care while still operating on imperialism and neocolonialism.
No im looking at the per captia stat. Everything you said is cope
Yes, “per capita” going by total emissions within the respective countries and dividing it by the populace, not actually taking into account consumption and where that comes from. It’s incredibly ironic that you call correctly analyzing the greenwashing and imperialist apologia you did “cope” without engaging with any of what I said.
Why would consumption matter? China chooses what it wants to manufacturer. If China had better environmental standards and didnt just blast coal and dump into rivers then the EU would manufacturer more of its own goods. Thats a China fault and has nothing to do with the EU. I engaged with all of your cope you’re just bending yourself over backwards trying to defend this.
Consumption matters because it’s the actual, net impact of someone. The EU cannot produce what it needs anymore because they are imperialist, bank and industrial capital merged into monopoly long ago. Finance is what drives the EU, not production, and as a consequence it does not produce what it needs to survive. The EU depends on super-exploitation of foreign labor, neocolonialism to ensure access to raw materials, and greenwashes by erasing this dependency on the global south.
Imagine a landlord, saying that nobody needs to work to live because they simply own property. The problem with this is immediately clear, as long as there are landlords, there are tenants that they rely on, without the tenants there is no landlord, and these tenants must perform labor to pay their rent. It’s the same with the EU as the landlord, producers like China as the tenants, and emissions as labor. The EU erases its own dependency on emissions by pretending that they are independent from them.
As for China, they have far stronger environmental regulations than you seem to think. China today is lightyears ahead of the China of the 80s and 90s, which you seem trapped into picturing them as. China’s ecosocialist initiatives far exceed those of the EU, and matter far more because they produce what much of the world actually relies upon. Their per capita emissions are very low when compared to consumption, yet are still working to tackle climate change as best as they can. The EU essentially pushes their responsibilities onto others.
There’s no cope here, you just fundamentally do not seem to understand how greenwashing and imperialism work.
If we’re taking into account consumption then China is even worse. They are over half the worlds emissions. They should have a bigger focus on reducing that. Their eco positive initiatives are barely a drop in the bucket compared to all the damage they’ve done.
By individual consumption, China is doing well and getting better. You still have not grasped my point. China’s emissions are largely for the consumption of other countries, that these other countries rely on, and get to greenwash by simply not producing anything.