As environmental quality continued to improve, in the 339 cities monitored at or above prefecture level, 72.6 percent met air quality standards, official data showed.
It’s not a useful statistic, but it’s also not what the statistic is about. The gdp isn’t just production, a significant part of it is the money earned by the citizens. So this puts the emissions at least partly in relation to the money the average citizen earns.
I wonder what those countries share maybe the fact that they offshored their carbon heavy industries and reskilled towards the information sector? I wonder what country most of that industry ended up in and has it as it’s main economic driver?
Studies have found that absolute decoupling was rare and that only a few industrialised countries had weak decoupling of GDP from “consumption-based” CO2 production.[4] No evidence was found of national or international economy-wide decoupling in a study in 2020.[5] In cases where evidence of decoupling exists, one proposed explanation is the transition to a service economy.
Your own link disagrees with you and agrees with me.
The link states that there are a bunch of countries who absolutely managed to lower emissions while increasing gdp. The argument against it isn’t that this isn’t true, it’s that there’s no “true” economic decoupling because gdp doesn’t reflect a whole bunch of stuff (such as emission heavy industries just being moved to countries that don’t give a flying fuck about emissions).
What is it? Are China’s emissions great because they decline in relation to gdp? Then they’re really not because other countries manage to increase gdp while reducing emissions drastically. Or don’t those statistics matter because there’s no true decoupling? Then gdp is obviously the wrong value to measure against, which is what I said in the first place. Right now you’re arguing both ways, but always in the direction that benefits China, which is obviously contradictory.
You’re still fundamentally illiterate on the actual distinction the source makes, so let me spell it out in words small enough for you to process: production-based accounting vs. consumption-based accounting are not interchangeable. The reason those cute little “decoupling” success stories exist is literally because they moved their smokestacks to countries like China. The link you proudly waved around says this directly. It’s not a subtle point. It’s the entire caveat. So when you point to falling emissions in Country X as proof GDP/emissions ratios are not meaningful, while ignoring that Country X just outsourced its heavy industry to the very place you’re criticizing, you’re not making an argument, you’re demonstrating that you can read words without comprehending their function (you are functionally illiterate).
China is the factory of the world. That is not a secret. That is not a bug. It is the structural reality of global trade. So when China manages to keep producing an absurd volume of goods while reducing emissions per unit of GDP, that is genuinely useful information. It tells you efficiency is improving under real-world constraints. What is not useful is pretending that a service-heavy economy with no manufacturing base is “winning” on emissions by virtue of having shipped its carbon footprint overseas. That’s not decoupling. That’s accounting fraud.
So no, I’m not arguing both ways. I’m applying consistent logic: if you care about actual global emissions, you have to follow the production. If you only care about looking good on a chart, sure, keep clapping for countries that reduced emissions by closing factories and importing the same goods from China. But don’t pretend your chart proves anything about environmental progress, and don’t act surprised when someone points out that your “gotcha” was debunked in the third paragraph of the source you linked. At this point, you’re either trolling intentionally, or you’re genuinely incapable of holding two related ideas in your head at once.
GDP/emissions is a useful data point when used in conjunction with knowledge of what groups of industry are pushing GDP. The fact you can’t see this is amazing.
GDP/emissions is a useful data point when used in conjunction with knowledge of what groups of industry are pushing GDP. The fact you can’t see this is amazing.
So it’s a useful data point if it suits your talking points but not if it doesn’t, got it. What nonsense. Provide useful data beyond claims of some absurd “accounting fraud” and then we can talk.
The kind of economic output matters, doesn’t it? If a country’s main sources of economic growth are tourism, cultural products, and financial instruments then it’s very different from a country that produces manufactured goods and relies on heavy industry.
It’s not a useful statistic, but it’s also not what the statistic is about. The gdp isn’t just production, a significant part of it is the money earned by the citizens. So this puts the emissions at least partly in relation to the money the average citizen earns.
But let’s just put that aside and assume gdp is a valid criterion. Even then, there are lots of countries that manage to grow their gdp while reducing their emissions. Which illustrates even more that emitting more co2 but growing the economy a bit more than those emissions isn’t an achievement, it’s a failure.
I wonder what those countries share maybe the fact that they offshored their carbon heavy industries and reskilled towards the information sector? I wonder what country most of that industry ended up in and has it as it’s main economic driver?
Your own link disagrees with you and agrees with me.
Oh… So now we agree that relating them to gdp is a dumb way to measure emissions?
You have to be trolling or you are completely illiterate.
So your defense ends up being “you’re dumb”? Way to go, buddy.
What defense? Your link disproves your point? You’re not wrong because you’re dumb you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
The link states that there are a bunch of countries who absolutely managed to lower emissions while increasing gdp. The argument against it isn’t that this isn’t true, it’s that there’s no “true” economic decoupling because gdp doesn’t reflect a whole bunch of stuff (such as emission heavy industries just being moved to countries that don’t give a flying fuck about emissions).
What is it? Are China’s emissions great because they decline in relation to gdp? Then they’re really not because other countries manage to increase gdp while reducing emissions drastically. Or don’t those statistics matter because there’s no true decoupling? Then gdp is obviously the wrong value to measure against, which is what I said in the first place. Right now you’re arguing both ways, but always in the direction that benefits China, which is obviously contradictory.
You’re still fundamentally illiterate on the actual distinction the source makes, so let me spell it out in words small enough for you to process: production-based accounting vs. consumption-based accounting are not interchangeable. The reason those cute little “decoupling” success stories exist is literally because they moved their smokestacks to countries like China. The link you proudly waved around says this directly. It’s not a subtle point. It’s the entire caveat. So when you point to falling emissions in Country X as proof GDP/emissions ratios are not meaningful, while ignoring that Country X just outsourced its heavy industry to the very place you’re criticizing, you’re not making an argument, you’re demonstrating that you can read words without comprehending their function (you are functionally illiterate).
China is the factory of the world. That is not a secret. That is not a bug. It is the structural reality of global trade. So when China manages to keep producing an absurd volume of goods while reducing emissions per unit of GDP, that is genuinely useful information. It tells you efficiency is improving under real-world constraints. What is not useful is pretending that a service-heavy economy with no manufacturing base is “winning” on emissions by virtue of having shipped its carbon footprint overseas. That’s not decoupling. That’s accounting fraud.
So no, I’m not arguing both ways. I’m applying consistent logic: if you care about actual global emissions, you have to follow the production. If you only care about looking good on a chart, sure, keep clapping for countries that reduced emissions by closing factories and importing the same goods from China. But don’t pretend your chart proves anything about environmental progress, and don’t act surprised when someone points out that your “gotcha” was debunked in the third paragraph of the source you linked. At this point, you’re either trolling intentionally, or you’re genuinely incapable of holding two related ideas in your head at once.
GDP/emissions is a useful data point when used in conjunction with knowledge of what groups of industry are pushing GDP. The fact you can’t see this is amazing.
Comrade you have the patience of a saint
So it’s a useful data point if it suits your talking points but not if it doesn’t, got it. What nonsense. Provide useful data beyond claims of some absurd “accounting fraud” and then we can talk.
The kind of economic output matters, doesn’t it? If a country’s main sources of economic growth are tourism, cultural products, and financial instruments then it’s very different from a country that produces manufactured goods and relies on heavy industry.
Which means gdp is a shitty value to relate emissions to. Exactly. Because it says nothing about that.