World News

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago*

It's bittersweet because it just reinforces that our economy holds greater value than our survival.

Though, to be fair, we do seem to be a species that only takes reactive action. So climate change would never get resolved until it's full-swing fucking most of us over, at which point it'll be too late for most of us since it's basically there already.

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 1 point 6 months ago

The title is a bit misleading as there are only around 60 democratic states that meet to discuss fossil fuel exit. The majority of governments, including the the world's biggest polluters, are missing, particularly China and the US.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago

Most of the Asian countries and others are racing towards the use of renewables, faster than most western nations. The Iran war has at least sped up our planets pace of change. No doubt the big oil companies will fund whatever they need to get the best returns

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 months ago

Trump is indirectly solving climate change

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

The title is a bit misleading as there are only around 60 democratic states that meet to discuss fossil fuel exit. The majority of governments, including the the world's biggest polluters, are missing, particularly China and the US.

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The world needs to catch up to China on renewable energy not the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

China, the world's biggest polluter, is among the countries that refused to join the group aiming to phase out fossil fuels.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

China manufactures the most goods though... by a lot, and that's going to be pollution intensive. They are a pretty populated country as well.

US, oil producing countries, Europe are generally a lot worse than China on a per capita consumption basis.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

@yes_this_time@lemmy.world

The group of 60 states that discuss the fossil fuel phase out as described in the linked article formed during the latest COP last year in Brazil as the majority of governments refused to commit to an end of fossil fuels. China and the US were among these countries.

US, oil producing countries, Europe are generally a lot worse than China on a per capita consumption basis.

If we look at the CO₂ emissions per capita of the world’s top 30 economies by GDP, China sits at number 9 with 8.7 tons per year and person (in 2024). This is more than double the global average and more than any European country except Russia.

China's climate action's are also highly insufficient, including against the country's fair share regarding its National Determined Contributions (NDCs). It's not that Europe is on track to achieve the Paris goals, but it's much better than China.

Despite a rise in renewable energy investments, coal has re-emerged as an ongoing force in China’s power system in recent years for a variety of reasons, and this is also clearly embedded in Beijing’s recently released new 15th Five-Year Plan.

It's time that Europe revives its own renewable energy industry. Environmental laws regarding production and consumption are much stronger in Europe than in China, and so it is better for Europe from a security point of view.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago

I should clarify, im not trying to let China off the hook.

But production based CO2 per capita is not the only metric. Europe (for example) has outsourced dirty production to China, so they look clean, but it's people in Europe consuming the products China is producing, so it should be on their ledger.

If you look at CO2 from a consumption basis China falls down the list below Europe.

Now... I suppose consumption based metrics better align with peoples behaviors (ie Europeans are more damaging to the environment than Chinese on average).

On the other hand, production metrics point to European countries having stricter environmental policies than China. which to be fair is what you are highlighting. I'm trying to say, yes, but China is manufacturing way more for other countries.

Stricter policies is part of what pushed manufacturing out (and labour costs). Easier to do when you are a service economy.

parent

[–] JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 13 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

Holy shit, will an angry vendetta of child abuser Trump actually bring around a faster transition to green energy in the rest of the world??

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 months ago

This was in the work for longer then Trumps attacks against Iran and Venezuela. The main issue is that the Cops are blocked by petrostates. So a smaller group of countries working on solutions to the issue, can really help a lot. It is also not the first of such groups.

However Trump most certainly somewhat helped the transition. Many green alternatives are already cheaper and countries, which were already on the path towards zero carbon have a good reason to accelerate the process. We seem to be in a world were petrostates vs electrostates.

parent

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 0 points 6 months ago

The group of 60 states that discuss the fossil fuel phase out as described in the linked article formed during the latest COP last year in Brazil as the majority of governments refused to commit to an end of fossil fuels. China and the US, both among the world's largest polluters in total as well as per capita, are among these countries. They have no interest in a fossil fuel phase out.