What kind of stupid measurement is that? The solution to being more environmentally friendly is now printing more money or what?
China’s CO2 per capita is down too. What’s your point?
- Their currency rose vs $ by end of year, and the end of year value is probably what is used.
- GDP in China means making stuff. Manufacturing also kept growing in 2025, and it uses energy.
- The other way to improve this metric is to just have your GDP be insurance, finance, and a housing bubble.
- their emissions were almost flat despite a manufacturing led total GDP growth of 5% in 2025. Renewables are real.
Most emissions are from production. Factory of the world and all. So if you reduce the emissions for the same amount of production that’s a useful statistic. Is that really so hard to understand?
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?
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.
Oh… So now we agree that relating them to gdp is a dumb way to measure emissions?
No evidence was found of national or international economy-wide decoupling
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.
CO2 emissions as a ratio of economic activity makes perfect sense. Not sure what this has to do with printing money. Sounds like you’re deeply confused and angry.
If you measure economic activity in terms of domestic currency per capita, then you’re effectively measuring against the amount of money available. It’s a stupid way to measure anything.
It’s also stupid to measure co2 emissions against economic activity if you don’t use the local currency as the point of reference because a) the planet doesn’t care how economically active society is when the climate goes downhill and b) you then usually use another currency, probably usd, as a point of reference, so even then inflation will keep boosting numbers, regardless of actual emissions.
The only number that counts is emissions per capita. China is terrible when it comes to that though, so I get why tankies keep inventing bullshit metrics to make it seem a little less horrific.
China’s emissions per capita are about half those of the US while being the factory of the world?
In 2022, the per capita CO2 emissions in the United States were approximately 14.21 tons, while in China, they were about 8.89 tons.
Why are you so arrogantly wrong? Did you not look into it at all? Do you get off on humiliating yourself?
What does the US have to do with that? The US are obviously even worse. So what? China’s emissions are rising dramatically and that’s an issue. Saying that’s not too bad because they have more money now is dumb because, as I said, the only relevant measurement is emissions per capita. Which should be zero (which they are nowhere) or declining (which china’s don’t). It’s not a hard concept.
The US comparison matters since you called China “terrible” despite half the per capita emissions as the only reel peer power. (Even with US manufacturing being largely nonexistent)
China’s emissions likely peaked in 2024 and are declining https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-18-months/ . They are also building roughly twice the new renewable capacity than the rest of the world combined https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-continues-to-lead-the-world-in-wind-and-solar-with-twice-as-much-capacity-under-construction-as-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/
Check the actual data before lecturing on “hard concepts.” Or are you dumb on purpose?
The US comparison is stupid because the US are literally the worst offender when it comes to emissions per capita. That way you’re hanging the bar so low you’ll always end up winning.
I linked the emissions statistics I used earlier: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china
I’m well aware that China installs more renewables than anybody else. They also install much, much more coal than anybody else. So yeah, it could be worse, but it’s still horrific and greenwashing that by comparing it to metrics of economic growth doesn’t change it.
The US comparison isn’t “stupid”, it’s essential when you called China “terrible” on per capita emissions despite them ranking ~25th globally with emissions roughly half the US level. Even ignoring peer comparisons, China’s per capita footprint is only slightly above the EU average despite manufacturing goods for Western consumption, many EU countries appear “cleaner” only because they offshored production emissions to China .
Your coal argument also ignores context: China’s new coal units are ultra-supercritical (44–48% efficiency vs. ~30% for older plants), replacing dirtier capacity and lowering net emissions per kWh Global Energy Prize. Crucially, coal utilization has fallen to ~51% as renewables cover demand growth, solar and wind supplied ~90% of new electricity demand in Q3 2025 alone Carbon Brief.
China also has 339 GW of wind/solar under construction, nearly twice the rest of the world combined Global Energy Monitor. Emissions have been flat or falling for 18+ months, consistent with a 2024 peak Carbon Brief. If you’re citing OWID but ignoring rank data, consumption-based accounting, plant efficiency, and quarterly trends, you’re not engaging with the actual metrics you’re pushing a narrative.
tankies
…sigh. What a child.
thank you for providing an example of a fractally wrong statement
