Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoThe reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant. They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place. For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030. The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down. Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
You brought it up (and are reasserting it in this quote), same as how you bring up China unasked. Clearly you thought it was relevant, you are just trying to avoid responsibility for your claims.
Which part of “meeting or exceeding their Paris targets” reads as “get a free pass” to you?
Oh so the decision of what to target isn’t just “no increases immediately”? Glad we agree and can stop pretending it’s so simplistic. Though I see you neglected to acknowledge India’s targets.
The commitments of China were nearly an order of magnitude higher than the EU and US actually. By the way the US withdrew and is going hog wild.
And they are meeting their commitments, even exceeding them, despite being the primary seat of global production while the EU continues to deindustrialize.
In production, yes. They are deindustrializing. Their targets are much easier to hit, they follow the global capitalist economic trend re: imperialism, offshoring. It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
It’s really not. You move production to China because overall it is vastly cheaper, primarily due to the much lower costs of labor reproduction and how tightly integrated industries are and can be due to infrastructure and colocation of technical ability. If you want to make something in the US something like half your cost goes to maintaining the humans doing it, and they’re expensive due to massive economic leeches: real estate, finance, insurance. When 80% of a paycheck goes to having a place to live (just renting), going to the doctor, and eating, your labor costs are just subsidizing rent seeking and finance.
Every country needs to meet their climate commitments. Is yours?
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
So you simply can’t engage with this discussion in good faith and are throwing up arbitrary roadblocks so you don’t have to think about things like why climate targets differ relative to development and historical emissions.
I refuse your excuses. India is relevant. Either engage in good faith or I will ignore you.
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
So you bring up unrelated whataboutisms and then complain that people won’t follow them. I’m not throwing arbitrary roadblocks, you’re throwing arbitrary roads. And you want to claim you are acting in good faith? Laughable