[JohnMakin]

On climate change, are we somewhere between step 3 and 4? It sure looks a lot that way to me. Maybe closer to 4 soon. That conversation is exhausting, or kind of the inverse of this, overwhelming confidence in the success of future technologies that do not really exist yet.

[Etheryte]

I think whether you're at 3 or 4 depends largely on what latitude you live at. I have many colleagues who are seriously considering moving because the weather is getting too extreme where they're at. Meanwhile people in mellower climates don't even see there's a problem, they're happy there's somewhere warm they can take a holiday in the cold months.

[JohnMakin]

I live in LA - I am born and raised, never even left the city until I was an adult - I think it’s the best place on earth, but the recent natural disaster has made up my mind for me. I’m still grieving a little in my head about it, but long suspected this day could come - my home is losing fire insurance. I’m not sure I can even sell it if the market goes into a downturn, I don’t really even have a hard decision. the question to me is, what area will weather natural disasters the best in the next 40-60 years? I don’t honestly know. I think parts of northern alaska could become pretty temperate and is reasonably cheap/undeveloped, but I have infrastructure concerns and am not so much interested in remaining in the united states.

[staunton]

> northern alaska could become pretty temperate

If you're worried about wildfires, I'd look it up and reconsider Alaska...

[JohnMakin]

You know alaska is massive and geographically diverse right?

[staunton]

Are there there parts of Alaska where people live and where you will not have wildfires (this century) close enough to at least significantly impact air quality?

(I guess one could also consider parts where people don't live yet...)

[DrScientist]

Perhaps a reason why the US is looking to build a massive wall on the southern border ( people feeling northward ) and is eyeing the acquisition of territories to the north.

Though that doesn't map to the 4 stages of stalling - it's a stage 5 - the oh crap stage.

[caminante]

Re: climate change, what can the US and other actors do for "support" when China's still at Yes Minister step 1? China's the biggest emitter and doesn't care. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

[jopicornell]

Let's not forget that China is the producer of the world and we are also responsible of that.

Then there is the misconception that China doesn't care, but their cities are a lot greener and prepared for transitioning to green renewals than many west countries.

[caminante]

> Their cities are a lot greener.

Simple air quality indices would disagree. And greener than who? Are you going to cherrypick cities and energy mixes?

You're still not offering a solution (carrot/stick) to "support" a solution.

[droopyEyelids]

As an aside, there is a bit of a disconnect in how the west interpret's China as "not caring" whenever China doesn't make a lot of noise about publicly fixing something. The party can care, but decide something gets less priority, and put it in their backlog, the same way a project manager can!

Air quality and industrial pollutants are a good example. Right now, China is prioritizing industrial expansion and energy stability until they hit whatever targets they have in mind. They'll be talking about carbon and pollution publicly once they can shut down their coal plants without destabilizing the grid.

[caminante]

Listen to yourself. There is no disconnect.

Deprioritizing is not caring. Saying otherwise is crazy!

[triceratops]

Anyone can spin total emissions to suit whatever agenda they want to push. They're the world biggest emitter but that's just lines on a map. If they were 10 separate countries it wouldn't be the biggest emitter. But those emissions would still be there.

China literally produces the most solar panels, electric cars, and batteries by far. In 2022 83% of new electricity generation in China was renewable (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037497). That doesn't scream a country that "doesn't care".

They might be building a lot of new coal plants, but they aren't actually using them more than they already did (see above). Why would they waste their coal? They build more solar panels than they know what to do with, the sun is free, and they don't have NIMBY groups holding up construction.

[caminante]

> emissions would still be there

Except not.

See this research showing that their domestic demand (ex-energy transition exports) is still massive and growing [0].

You're not alone as many on HN seem to have this misconception about greenwashing. The reality is different.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805218

[triceratops]

You misunderstood my comment. I'm not talking about emissions due to exports or emissions due to building green tech.

I'm saying the people who live there would emit the same amount whether they were 10 countries or 1. "China bad because total emissions" only comes up because they're 1 country.

> their domestic [energy] demand is still massive and growing

Of course that will happen as they develop their economy and improve their standard of living. But most of the new energy generation - 83% in 2022 - coming online is all renewable.

Would you suggest they don't develop, and remain poor? They'd be justified in saying "You first, rich Westerner". People in gigantic SUVs shouldn't throw stones at people in electric cars.

[DrScientist]

When comparing countries of different sizes - the fairest way to do so is on a per capita basis [1] and the US is still way ahead of China.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

[1] As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries. Places like the UK have simply shipped their emissions overseas - then complain about these countries rising emissions.

[caminante]

China has been responsible for 90% of the global growth in emissions since 2015. [0] Their population didn't change more than ~2%.

[0] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe...

> As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries.

Not really. See domestic power demand growth for non-green applications. [0]

[DrScientist]

It's easy to have the highest growth if you start from nowhere - when somebody quotes growth you should instantly be on guard for BS. For example the US could have gone from 1000 to 1020, and China from 200 to 220 - focusing on the larger percentage increase from China is rather missing the point.

You are also forgetting total carbon emissions over the lifetime of a country - developed countries are responsible for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere - and while developing countries might be catching up in day to day emissions they are nowhere in catching up in total emissions.

[caminante]

Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions.

This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing.

And cumulative emissions? Another ironic critique, given China is by far the largest and fastest growing emitter. Assuming you agree with the 1.5C target increase, we have a limited budget. Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

[DrScientist]

It's about per capita basis - it's still roughly half the US emissions per capita and while it may be growing it still has a long way to catch up.

The population of China is about 4x the US.

> Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill - while China is leading on renewable generation.

Hardly anybody is doing enough - but blaming others and doubling down on consumption it's a sustainable strategy either.

[forgotoldacc]

I love when people like you post with no concept of "per capita". Then there's always frustration at the people who do understand the concept and realize the "point" is simply a result of ignorance.

China is at 30% renewable energy. The US is at 21%. And the president of the dirtiest country in the world, lots of smart people are saying it, that's just what they call the US these days, they say, passed an executive order to ban new solar and wind power. Sad!

[caminante]

/forehead slap

If China is using more renewables, then why are they producing way more GHG? See how this line of reasoning is flawed? This reality undermines your snark about having a higher % mix or per capita production, which is an incomplete rebuttal and serves greenwashing arguments.

[forgotoldacc]

Because they have 1.4 billion people.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/per-cap...

Some useful terminology for your journey.

Imagine you have a buffet. You have five people who each take 1 steak. Then you have one person who takes 4 steaks.

You are the person saying the one person taking 4 steaks is okay. The problem is the selfish four people who are eating 1 steak each. If they all stopped, the other guy could have 9 steaks.

Which is of course a silly proposition. The one guy could simply eat fewer steaks.

China is also the center of world manufacturing. The fact they make almost everything on earth but still have lower per capita emissions than the US is impressive.

[caminante]

LOL. You try to get pedantic about per capita and use a buffet analogy, but don't even get the mapping to the problem right or make a point that helps you.

China is responsible for >30% of ghg emissions and for 90% of incremental CO2 emissions growth in the last decade. Their population didn't grow more than ~2%! Your buffet analogy misses the constraint about the earth's carbon budget being limited to keep global warming to +1.5c. China is effectively blowing through everyone's budget so that no steak will be left and running the buffet out of business.

[forgotoldacc]

You're angry and making up things that make no sense. Settle down.

[briandear]

They say they are at 30% renewable. Much different than actually being 30%.

[JohnMakin]

except that these things are measurable and quite trivially

[caminante]

Not when actors report false numbers. China's track record is terrible on honest environmental reporting [0] and their power consumption has been greenwashed with electrification that makes a minor portion of their GHG growth [1].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-emb...

[1] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe...

[defrost]

You have a 12 year old article about manual reporting of smog levels that's moot given the past decade of gas measuring satellites, and you ignore the fact that China isn't a closed country, it's one routinely visited by internationals including those from the IEA that directly inspect energy infrastructure.

[rat87]

Start by not doing

But China on global warming

Second step do more as a country

Third step try to shame or encourage China and other countries into doing more

The US is still in the lead for total emissions historically and has a higher emissions per person. If it ignores it's responsibility it makes it very easy for China not to mention India or other lower total emissions countries to do the same.

China is doing something if not enough. The goal should not be trying to find a way to avoid responsibility because that's how you get all countries to avoid doing anything. The point is too keep pushing all countries starting with yours to to more

[caminante]

Not working.

Do more? The US is buying pv panels produced on Chinese coal power. And no party is catching China's GHG productions.

Arguing cumulative historicals is playing into propaganda, and per capita? China is doing enough? They're building new coal plants! You can't be serious.

[rat87]

We need to do much much much more. Starting with banning ICE cars by 2035 if not sooner

Did I say China was doing enough? No

Are they do enough?

Hell no

Is the US doing enough? Hell no

Arguing historicals and per capita plays into Chinese propaganda because there is some truth to it. There is also truth to the fact that China emits twice as much as the US and almost a third of the worlds emissions.

I don't like or trust the authorian dictatorship of China

But are you going to get China to emit less then they currently do by reversing the already inadequate measures the US is taking? No. We need to do much much more and get China and other countries to do more

If we use excuses of other countries to do less then so will they and we will all burn up together.

[Lanolderen]

Electric is seen as some miracle fix but it's really not that simple. ICE producton lines won't just disappear.

Emergency and industrial vehicles will need to remain ICE to a large extent because you don't want to be reliant on the grid and because they need tons of range, there's a reason they pay for extra large fuel tanks.

Vans and trucks don't really work as electric unless you're the post office just doing a trip around the block carrying no significant weight and stopping every 10 meters for the entire workday.

Cost and fire concerns are an issue.

People who travel long distance daily for work are much better served by a diesel.

Also chucking all of our ICE cars at the third world probably isn't a good way of improving emissions. What we probably actually need is hybrids, eco fuels, lighter and smaller cars on average, (electric) motorcycles/scooters, vehicles that last longer, retrofit emission improvement kits for older vehicles, etc.

[caminante]

> did i say china was doing enough? No

This is bad faith when your text says you want to shame them into doing more. Someone doing enough doesn't need to be shamed into further action.

[dgfitz]

Yeah, that worked out phenomenally with US-china trade agreements!