[nixon_why69]

That's while being the world's factory, having lots of green energy, electric cars and an ACUTE motivation to reduce oil imports. Coal is a problem but at least they're not canceling half-finished green energy products when administrations change.

[sarchertech]

Sure they are building solar infrastructure. But they’re also still increasing co2 emissions. If you are the autocratic leader with almost total control of 1/3 of the worlds co2, and you believe that climate change is an existential threat, you wouldn’t be increasing co2 emissions. Xi could reduce co2 emissions with the stroke of a pen.

So he obviously doesn’t think it’s that much of a threat.

[nixon_why69]

Xi could theoretically reduce GDP and associated emissions with the stroke of a pen[1], and so could most legislatures. None are doing it.

Building up alternative energy is a work in progress for anyone, they're leaders on electric cars which is good but they won't get off coal until they (or someone) figures out managing a grid with 80%+ of mostly-intermittent inputs from wind and solar.

[1] Not really, for the same reason as the legislatures, it's horrible politically. Dictatorships and especially the Chinese system have broader bases of support and political activity than most American media discourse assumes.

[sarchertech]

> Xi could theoretically reduce GDP and associated emissions with the stroke of a pen

He showed he was willing to do that during Covid. If he was really convinced climate change was a problem he could clearly do more than he is.

It’s not a prisoners dilemma issue with Xi like it is with most countries. He controls 1/3 of global emissions. He is probably the only person on the planet who can personally reduce future temperatures.

[nixon_why69]

And then they ended those harsh COVID measures due to unpopularity and protests. He's not God-King.

I'd love for everyone to do more but its a little rich to hear from westerners, who emit more CO2 per person, that the Chinese should stop developing people out of third world poverty for everyone's sake. Peasants produce much less carbon than people with air conditioning.

[sarchertech]

> but its a little rich to hear from westerners, who emit more CO2 per person, that the Chinese

1. Most western countries don’t emit more per capita than China.

2. I’m not saying what Xi should or shouldn’t do. I’m telling that what he is doing indicates that he doesn’t believe climate change is an existential threat.

[nixon_why69]

I also would like the Chinese to do more, but as an American waving broadly at our political consensus, I have a hard time pointing fingers. At least they're doing something.

[1234letshaveatw]

are you advocating for not changing administrations?

[nixon_why69]

Is that a good faith question? Please check the site guidelines.

[1234letshaveatw]

It is, and certainly relevant (although perhaps inconvenient) considering the recent elections in China. Aren't shifting priorities a side effect of free elections?

[pessimizer]

This is as goofy a response as answering the question "why did you make the decision to kill him" with "are you against people making decisions?"

[bigyabai]

> Aren't shifting priorities a side effect of free elections?

It can be, but you're describing an instance of fossil fuel lobbying and transparent corruption: https://www.statista.com/statistics/788056/us-oil-and-gas-lo...

[linkregister]

uses rhetoric

counterparty uses rhetoric in response

"Hey! No fair!"

[nixon_why69]

Pointing out that the US cancels their green projects when Republicans take over is a fact, it's not rhetoric.

There's plenty of room for interesting discussion on what it takes to make green energy work. "What, are you against freedom?!" is not that.