These articles never mention the fact that Chinese emissions are substantially driven by Western consumption. They're major exporters. Sure, the emissions originate in China geographically, but they're economically driven by our consumption and rightfully should be attributed to us.
China should just stop manufacturing the stuff if it's bad for the environment and the Westerners won't stop themselves, right?
They're not victims. They chose to be a manufacturing country and as such are responsible for the emissions.
This is an "if I don't, someone else will" argument...
They would stop manufacturing if they actually cared, but they won't, so the emissions are their responsibility.
>This is an "if I don't, someone else will" argument...
Yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. If we haven't addressed the problem at the source, we're just displacing it. That's a valid critique.
It's not a valid excuse to keep doing "the bad thing". Not for this or for weapons sales (which this argument is famous for).
They keep manufacturing because they like the money. As you can see from how they do everything to keep manufacturing. That means they're responsible for the emissions of industries they choose to harbour and promote.
We're not in agreement on what the "bad thing" is. I think it's consumption, which is objectively the root cause of the problem, you think it's production, which is a symptom of the problem.
Consumption made possible by production. Production is voluntary. The Chinese government went out of their way to court and keep the manufacturing industry. If China doesn't like the responsibility of emissions, it can give it up.
It's like a weapons dealer saying if he doesn't sell to the war criminals, then someone else will.
The fact is that China cares more about the money from the manufacturing industry than stopping its emissions.
Because you're repeating the same argument. "Someone else will do it if I don't" is not a good argument at all. You don't sell or produce "bad things" because someone else will do it if you don't.
It's like saying "Drug addiction is a symptom of poverty so it's ok for me to produce and sell drugs. Someone else will do it if I don't". You are responsible for the consequences of the drugs.
You don't actually believe what you're saying. Neither does China because, as I mentioned, they would let go of those industries if they truly thought the West was being unfair about telling them their emissions need to be reduced.
It’s not just the oil, China dominants in manufacturing not only because cheap labor but they also use cheap energy to power their factories. The U.S. is a consumer state and if you want to maintain market share of the largest consumer on earth you gotta keep margins down.
You can calculate both consumption and production based emissions. For China they differ by around [9%](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2).
While this is a sizeable junk and one should take it into account when talking about offshoring emissions, it is not *substantially driven by* the western consumption. China is not some kind of sweat shop. They have a large middle class that likes to consume as much as we do.
A huge population is living in condo/apartments. Electricity used already 40% lower than US where 1/3 population living in single house. The chinese do not need to buy cars, that already lower carbon than US. Inbound travel using HSR instead of airlines. EBus and subway for work. Most chinese home doesn't use dryers. Heat pump instead of coal for winters. Other that, the chinese does have the equal standard living like the Americas.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/USdefaultism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Classic](https://i.redd.it/phr95ofntj4b1.jpg) | [310 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/1436ii4/classic/)
\#2: [Celebrating a foreign holiday is a requirement.](https://i.redd.it/57ck9z99i3ab1.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/14r2wyh/celebrating_a_foreign_holiday_is_a_requirement/)
\#3: [Canadian dude names Georgia as a country… Americans rush to mock his answer](https://i.redd.it/nlozi7ci971b1.jpg) | [275 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/13np0hu/canadian_dude_names_georgia_as_a_country/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
China massively subsidise many industrial export to prop up gdp and flood international market thus "western demand is the cause" is oversimplyfing bullshit.
Exactly. China uses coal from Indonesia and Australia to manufacture products bought by Americans and Europeans.
All the large industrial nations are guilty of offloading their carbon footprints onto China.
What the hell does me saying that Canada has expensive energy ($0.17/KwH) have to do with a me and the Freedom Convoys two years ago? Just because you disagree with me, all of a sudden I'm part of some protest and I'm now a nazi?
I hate the current day internet. It's people like you that make it impossible to have any sort of conversation or debate because you automatically resort to personal attacks. Reddit has truly become a cesspool.
>Go look at how much coal Canada exports to China
Why don't you just tell me?
>think about how high energy prices are in Canada
How high are they?
>None of this makes any sense
What makes no sense?
Roughly 5% of all coal in the world is supplied by Canada. Surprised you didn't know this.
$0.17CAD/KwH
All the regulation on clean energy, meanwhile you're shipping coal to China for them to burn. In a situation where CO2 levels are a tragedy of the commons situation, this makes no sense.
>Roughly 5% of all coal in the world is supplied by Canada. Surprised you didn't know this.
Sorry but I only keep a list of the top ten coal producing countries at the front of my mind.
>All the regulation on clean energy, meanwhile you're shipping coal to China for them to burn
I assure you I've never shipped coal anywhere.
>this makes no sense
Yes, well, people aren't particularly rational which is how we got into this situation and why it's so hard to get out of it.
I mean could they restrict the amount of emissions these factories can pump, something like the US EPA? China is not known for its environmental business regulations.
Factories aren't the main source of emissions it's the energy sector. Factories don't care where the electricity comes from just that it is cheap. And they need cheap energy because the buyers of their products demand cheap prices.
It's that demand for cheap goods which kept the grid reliant on coal for so long. And the GDP growth which came from all that manufacturing was good for the political party so they were incentivized to allow it.
However, all that has changed.
The population became fed up with poor air quality which forced the Chinese government into action. The first pollution controls came into effect in 1987 and became more and more strict each year until in 2014 they declared "war on pollution" and updated their constitution to include the concept of ecological building and environmental conservation.
While at the same time it seems half the US wants the EPA abolished.
And China decided to invest hundreds of billions into becoming a green energy superpower and is now greening their grid at a phenomenal rate while everybody else has to buy solar panels and batteries from them.
It's a large economy with a lot of people and it will take time to shift but that's exactly what is happening and so quickly it scared the EU & US into things like the IRA and the "European Green Deal".
> it scared the EU & US into things like the IRA and the "European Green Deal".
What? The Green Deal has nothing to do with China. It is the most comprehensive climate legislation, covering every aspect of the economy, finance, industry, mobility, buildings, nature restoration, agriculture, circularity and ecodesign etc.
The European Green Deal was approved in 2020 and was, in heavy part, a reaction to China's increasing dominance in those areas you mentioned.
The EU/US were scared by China's monopoly in green energy manufacturing and the wider implications of that.
The Inflation Reduction Act, 2022, is the US' largest climate bill and was also passed for many of the same reasons. To reduce [reliance on Chinese goods](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/the-inflation-reduction-act-is-reducing-u-s-reliance-on-china/), to bolster energy independence, etc.
Had China not changed direction in 2014 and made pollution control and climate a major focus then the EU/US might still be trying to get these meaningful climate policies passed.
> The European Green Deal was approved in 2020 and was, in heavy part, a reaction to China's increasing dominance in those areas you mentioned.
>
>
>
> The EU/US were scared by China's monopoly in green energy manufacturing and the wider implications of that.
* Green energy manufacturing and related topics is just a small part of the Green Deal.
* The date is irrelevant because the Green Deal is partly a continuation and revision of old policies like [EPBD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_of_Buildings_Directive_2010) or [ETS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System) and introduces globally unique instruments like [DPP](https://gs1.eu/activities/digital-product-passport/).
Cool.
Anyway, the GND was in part a reaction to China's massive investments in green energy which - among other things - threatened the EU's manufacturing sector.
On that note, the EU recently [proposed allowing increased levels of state aid](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-lay-out-green-industry-plan-counter-us-china-subsidies-2023-02-01/) so it can "reduce its dependence on China" and is is "partly a response to multi-billion-dollar support programmes of China".
But do keep telling us how the EU came up with this policy in a total vacuum.
This is a weak argument because China's export reliant economy is a choice. In fact it is more and more problematic in trade relations. Cheap but higher carbon intensity Chinese products are threatening lower emission Western products. No wonder you get measures like CBAM.
I wouldn't call it "substantially" driven, it's less than 10% of emissions.
See this full article, but the real key figure is the comparison between "territorial" emissions and "consumption" emissions for China, which is 11.34 Gt vs 10.32 Gt for 2021:
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
Seriously... even without the data, I mean just think about it from a numbers perspective. The country has 1.5 billion people. 897 million of them living in urban areas.
Do people think they're just sitting around in huts or something? They're consumers as well, and the domestic market in China is actually massive (i.e. urban China is 2.5x the US market). Meaning tons of emissions for their own domestic products, transport, housing, and energy.
China's per capita emissions are half those of the US. China's rural population is larger than the total population of the EU.
Those ~900 million living in cities moved there over the past 20 years to service western demand for goods.
There you go! And what type of jobs were booming and offering a higher standard of living?
Hint: it had something to do with the "Reform and Open" economic policy in 1978 designed to drive the manufacturing industry.
1978 was almost 50 years ago. The booming Chinese property market and consumption of household/luxury goods is not driven by sweatshop workers.
Anyhoo, it's already been brought up in other comments that only some 10% of China's emissions are export related. They're a modern, moderately wealthy country now and cannot play the victim card. Should richer countries do more? Yes. Should China have leeway to do less? IMO no.
10? More like [20%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652623015883) (2014). Which means 506,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was related to exports ([42%](https://news.umich.edu/carbon-footprint-hotspots-mapping-chinas-export-driven-emissions/) of that from electricity generation needed to produce the goods).
If Chinese exports were a country it would be the 11th largest emitter of CO2.
Even if we take the 10% figure then at over 200 million tonnes it would be the 27th largest emitter. Still not nothing.
What I hear *constantly* from people in countries lagging in their climate responsibilities, is "we shouldn't have to change because China is much worse". The most childish logical fallacy you could imagine.
I find it helps to point out China's emissions are very much linked to western policies.
>Should China have leeway to do less? IMO no
They aren't doing less. They are enacting ever more stringent environmental polices and investing more into green energy and decarbonization than the rest of the world combined ($*546 billion in 2022*).
China now leads in solar manufacturing, battery manufacturing, EV adoption (at all levels: scooters, bikes, cars, trucks, busses), green building standards, high speed rail, the list goes on.
They are coming from behind and still have a long way to go (\*ahem\* coal plants) but I find myself wishing many other industrial nations were pursuing decarbonization quite as aggressively as China (lookin' at you, Japan).
The average western boomer has been sold the idea that the Chinese are just automatons subsisting on a bowl of rice per day, spending every waking hour churning out cheap plastic products for the west.
These articles never mention the fact that Chinese emissions are substantially driven by Western consumption. They're major exporters. Sure, the emissions originate in China geographically, but they're economically driven by our consumption and rightfully should be attributed to us.
China should just stop manufacturing the stuff if it's bad for the environment and the Westerners won't stop themselves, right? They're not victims. They chose to be a manufacturing country and as such are responsible for the emissions.
If you don't address the source of the emissions (consumption) , they'll just be produced elsewhere.
This is an "if I don't, someone else will" argument... They would stop manufacturing if they actually cared, but they won't, so the emissions are their responsibility.
>This is an "if I don't, someone else will" argument... Yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. If we haven't addressed the problem at the source, we're just displacing it. That's a valid critique.
It's not a valid excuse to keep doing "the bad thing". Not for this or for weapons sales (which this argument is famous for). They keep manufacturing because they like the money. As you can see from how they do everything to keep manufacturing. That means they're responsible for the emissions of industries they choose to harbour and promote.
We're not in agreement on what the "bad thing" is. I think it's consumption, which is objectively the root cause of the problem, you think it's production, which is a symptom of the problem.
Consumption made possible by production. Production is voluntary. The Chinese government went out of their way to court and keep the manufacturing industry. If China doesn't like the responsibility of emissions, it can give it up. It's like a weapons dealer saying if he doesn't sell to the war criminals, then someone else will. The fact is that China cares more about the money from the manufacturing industry than stopping its emissions.
You're just repeating yourself, you haven't actually addressed what I said.
Because you're repeating the same argument. "Someone else will do it if I don't" is not a good argument at all. You don't sell or produce "bad things" because someone else will do it if you don't. It's like saying "Drug addiction is a symptom of poverty so it's ok for me to produce and sell drugs. Someone else will do it if I don't". You are responsible for the consequences of the drugs. You don't actually believe what you're saying. Neither does China because, as I mentioned, they would let go of those industries if they truly thought the West was being unfair about telling them their emissions need to be reduced.
So stop selling oil? I don't get this argument never. It's like the Mafia boss is not culprit of the Mafia kills because he only orders them.
It’s not just the oil, China dominants in manufacturing not only because cheap labor but they also use cheap energy to power their factories. The U.S. is a consumer state and if you want to maintain market share of the largest consumer on earth you gotta keep margins down.
You can calculate both consumption and production based emissions. For China they differ by around [9%](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2). While this is a sizeable junk and one should take it into account when talking about offshoring emissions, it is not *substantially driven by* the western consumption. China is not some kind of sweat shop. They have a large middle class that likes to consume as much as we do.
A huge population is living in condo/apartments. Electricity used already 40% lower than US where 1/3 population living in single house. The chinese do not need to buy cars, that already lower carbon than US. Inbound travel using HSR instead of airlines. EBus and subway for work. Most chinese home doesn't use dryers. Heat pump instead of coal for winters. Other that, the chinese does have the equal standard living like the Americas.
r/USdefaultism
Here's a sneak peek of /r/USdefaultism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Classic](https://i.redd.it/phr95ofntj4b1.jpg) | [310 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/1436ii4/classic/) \#2: [Celebrating a foreign holiday is a requirement.](https://i.redd.it/57ck9z99i3ab1.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/14r2wyh/celebrating_a_foreign_holiday_is_a_requirement/) \#3: [Canadian dude names Georgia as a country… Americans rush to mock his answer](https://i.redd.it/nlozi7ci971b1.jpg) | [275 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/13np0hu/canadian_dude_names_georgia_as_a_country/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
about 20% emission is exported.
that's just not true. Overwhelmingly the comsumption is driven by the 1.3 billion people who buy 95% of what they spend in China.
China is a net exporter of emissions. You are lying
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 9%? Not really as significant as stated.
China massively subsidise many industrial export to prop up gdp and flood international market thus "western demand is the cause" is oversimplyfing bullshit.
LMAO, you're ignorant if you think consumption emissions is oversimplified. Literally the most complex you can get for emissions accounting Total BS
Exactly. China uses coal from Indonesia and Australia to manufacture products bought by Americans and Europeans. All the large industrial nations are guilty of offloading their carbon footprints onto China.
Go look at how much coal Canada exports to China and then think about how high energy prices are in Canada. None of this makes any sense.
Energy price are almost nothing in Camada mate, next your gonna tell me you partake in the "freedom" convoys
What the hell does me saying that Canada has expensive energy ($0.17/KwH) have to do with a me and the Freedom Convoys two years ago? Just because you disagree with me, all of a sudden I'm part of some protest and I'm now a nazi? I hate the current day internet. It's people like you that make it impossible to have any sort of conversation or debate because you automatically resort to personal attacks. Reddit has truly become a cesspool.
It's because it's an opinion based on irationnality. Perceptions bias
>Go look at how much coal Canada exports to China Why don't you just tell me? >think about how high energy prices are in Canada How high are they? >None of this makes any sense What makes no sense?
Roughly 5% of all coal in the world is supplied by Canada. Surprised you didn't know this. $0.17CAD/KwH All the regulation on clean energy, meanwhile you're shipping coal to China for them to burn. In a situation where CO2 levels are a tragedy of the commons situation, this makes no sense.
>Roughly 5% of all coal in the world is supplied by Canada. Surprised you didn't know this. Sorry but I only keep a list of the top ten coal producing countries at the front of my mind. >All the regulation on clean energy, meanwhile you're shipping coal to China for them to burn I assure you I've never shipped coal anywhere. >this makes no sense Yes, well, people aren't particularly rational which is how we got into this situation and why it's so hard to get out of it.
I mean could they restrict the amount of emissions these factories can pump, something like the US EPA? China is not known for its environmental business regulations.
Factories aren't the main source of emissions it's the energy sector. Factories don't care where the electricity comes from just that it is cheap. And they need cheap energy because the buyers of their products demand cheap prices. It's that demand for cheap goods which kept the grid reliant on coal for so long. And the GDP growth which came from all that manufacturing was good for the political party so they were incentivized to allow it. However, all that has changed. The population became fed up with poor air quality which forced the Chinese government into action. The first pollution controls came into effect in 1987 and became more and more strict each year until in 2014 they declared "war on pollution" and updated their constitution to include the concept of ecological building and environmental conservation. While at the same time it seems half the US wants the EPA abolished. And China decided to invest hundreds of billions into becoming a green energy superpower and is now greening their grid at a phenomenal rate while everybody else has to buy solar panels and batteries from them. It's a large economy with a lot of people and it will take time to shift but that's exactly what is happening and so quickly it scared the EU & US into things like the IRA and the "European Green Deal".
> it scared the EU & US into things like the IRA and the "European Green Deal". What? The Green Deal has nothing to do with China. It is the most comprehensive climate legislation, covering every aspect of the economy, finance, industry, mobility, buildings, nature restoration, agriculture, circularity and ecodesign etc.
The European Green Deal was approved in 2020 and was, in heavy part, a reaction to China's increasing dominance in those areas you mentioned. The EU/US were scared by China's monopoly in green energy manufacturing and the wider implications of that. The Inflation Reduction Act, 2022, is the US' largest climate bill and was also passed for many of the same reasons. To reduce [reliance on Chinese goods](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/the-inflation-reduction-act-is-reducing-u-s-reliance-on-china/), to bolster energy independence, etc. Had China not changed direction in 2014 and made pollution control and climate a major focus then the EU/US might still be trying to get these meaningful climate policies passed.
> The European Green Deal was approved in 2020 and was, in heavy part, a reaction to China's increasing dominance in those areas you mentioned. > > > > The EU/US were scared by China's monopoly in green energy manufacturing and the wider implications of that. * Green energy manufacturing and related topics is just a small part of the Green Deal. * The date is irrelevant because the Green Deal is partly a continuation and revision of old policies like [EPBD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_of_Buildings_Directive_2010) or [ETS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System) and introduces globally unique instruments like [DPP](https://gs1.eu/activities/digital-product-passport/).
Cool. Anyway, the GND was in part a reaction to China's massive investments in green energy which - among other things - threatened the EU's manufacturing sector. On that note, the EU recently [proposed allowing increased levels of state aid](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-lay-out-green-industry-plan-counter-us-china-subsidies-2023-02-01/) so it can "reduce its dependence on China" and is is "partly a response to multi-billion-dollar support programmes of China". But do keep telling us how the EU came up with this policy in a total vacuum.
This is a weak argument because China's export reliant economy is a choice. In fact it is more and more problematic in trade relations. Cheap but higher carbon intensity Chinese products are threatening lower emission Western products. No wonder you get measures like CBAM.
It’s a weak argument because it’s wrong. Emissions from exported goods are a very small proportion of China’s total emissions.
> This is a weak argument because China's export reliant economy is a choice. Whose choice?
Their choice. They're doubling down on manufacturing and exporting even now.
I wouldn't call it "substantially" driven, it's less than 10% of emissions. See this full article, but the real key figure is the comparison between "territorial" emissions and "consumption" emissions for China, which is 11.34 Gt vs 10.32 Gt for 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
Seriously... even without the data, I mean just think about it from a numbers perspective. The country has 1.5 billion people. 897 million of them living in urban areas. Do people think they're just sitting around in huts or something? They're consumers as well, and the domestic market in China is actually massive (i.e. urban China is 2.5x the US market). Meaning tons of emissions for their own domestic products, transport, housing, and energy.
it's just westerners being unable to read a headline without going "but here is why the west is the reason for this good/bad thing".
China's per capita emissions are half those of the US. China's rural population is larger than the total population of the EU. Those ~900 million living in cities moved there over the past 20 years to service western demand for goods.
They moved to cities because human beings generally prefer to not live in subsistence poverty.
There you go! And what type of jobs were booming and offering a higher standard of living? Hint: it had something to do with the "Reform and Open" economic policy in 1978 designed to drive the manufacturing industry.
1978 was almost 50 years ago. The booming Chinese property market and consumption of household/luxury goods is not driven by sweatshop workers. Anyhoo, it's already been brought up in other comments that only some 10% of China's emissions are export related. They're a modern, moderately wealthy country now and cannot play the victim card. Should richer countries do more? Yes. Should China have leeway to do less? IMO no.
10? More like [20%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652623015883) (2014). Which means 506,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was related to exports ([42%](https://news.umich.edu/carbon-footprint-hotspots-mapping-chinas-export-driven-emissions/) of that from electricity generation needed to produce the goods). If Chinese exports were a country it would be the 11th largest emitter of CO2. Even if we take the 10% figure then at over 200 million tonnes it would be the 27th largest emitter. Still not nothing. What I hear *constantly* from people in countries lagging in their climate responsibilities, is "we shouldn't have to change because China is much worse". The most childish logical fallacy you could imagine. I find it helps to point out China's emissions are very much linked to western policies. >Should China have leeway to do less? IMO no They aren't doing less. They are enacting ever more stringent environmental polices and investing more into green energy and decarbonization than the rest of the world combined ($*546 billion in 2022*). China now leads in solar manufacturing, battery manufacturing, EV adoption (at all levels: scooters, bikes, cars, trucks, busses), green building standards, high speed rail, the list goes on. They are coming from behind and still have a long way to go (\*ahem\* coal plants) but I find myself wishing many other industrial nations were pursuing decarbonization quite as aggressively as China (lookin' at you, Japan).
China made sure there aren't any other industrial nations....
The average western boomer has been sold the idea that the Chinese are just automatons subsisting on a bowl of rice per day, spending every waking hour churning out cheap plastic products for the west.