• Asetru@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Which means gdp is a shitty value to relate emissions to. Exactly. Because it says nothing about that.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s still useful because China is a country that produces manufactured goods and relies on heavy industry. The fact that they can achieve GDP growth from energy-intensive economic activity while shrinking the proportion of emissions is good news.

      • Asetru@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s the whole point, it actually isn’t. This isn’t helping. The planet is off worse. People in China earn more money and China exports more stuff, but in the end they still emit a buttload more because they, while also building lots of renewables, are also building lots and lots of new fossil fuel burning facilities.

        Also, the people here keep bringing up this whole “China produces so many good and relies on heavy industry” point. That’s not what the gdp is about, so the argument is moot because it’s essentially just a feeling.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Last year, China brought 78 gigawatts of new coal power online. It should be 0, no question.

          But by comparison they added 315 gigawatts of solar capacity and 119 gigawatts of wind.

          This is part of the story of why emssions-to-GDP ratios have fallen, because even as more fossil fuel burning is happening it’s taking up less of the economy. This matters, because eventually that will reach a tipping point. They just haven’t reached it yet.