Kruxx85 t1_itgqrh3 wrote
Reply to comment by Regi0 in China is building a 40 gigawatt offshore wind farm, the biggest power plant in existence by mutherhrg
Do you know the shape of a parabola?
It continues to go up(starting off exponentially), but goes up at a reduced rate until... it starts going down.
Regi0 t1_itgr8ie wrote
Actually, their carbon neutrality claim is for 2060, not 2030. Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/asia/china-climate-change.amp.html
Which means their 2030 claim is quite literally just saying carbon emissions might stop rising by 2030. No promises. The ice caps are already melting, by 2060 there will hardly be any left.
Kruxx85 t1_itgs3j2 wrote
Yes, and?
They have had the fastest growing economy over the last 20,30,50 years. That economy has been fuelled by fossil fuels.
They are now the largest producers of renewable energy with a current figure triple that of the US, while their total electrical energy generation is less than double that of the US.
If they were as slow as the US (and other countries) at transitioning to renewables, they would be incredibly further behind where they are now.
Nobody expects things to turn around instantly, it's trends that you look at.
The trending of renewable generation, and the trending of the reduction of fossil fuel generation.
Note, your trend can be downwards even though your absolute figures are still increasing. That was my point with the parabola.
Regi0 t1_itgskj1 wrote
I hope you realize that investing in renewables hardly means anything even if the rate of increase in China's carbon emissions is decreasing. The actual amount dumped into the atmosphere is still increasing regardless. The damage has and is still being done. It's permanent.
Kruxx85 t1_itgtvi0 wrote
Then blame our consumerist society for that.
China's economy is built on the back of our consumerist selves. They are just better at manufacturing what we want, better than we are at it.
They seem to be changing direction. Hopefully that's a global change.
As I said, you can't change the past but you can shape the future.
Regi0 t1_itgyydp wrote
I agree completely. China is no more at fault than the United States. The system itself is killing our planet, and it won't stop unless we all consume less.
I want to have hope.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itqzxr2 wrote
Tell me you don't know anything about ecology without telling me you don't know anything about ecology, you go first:
> The damage has and is still being done. It's permanent.
Regi0 t1_itr4fbv wrote
Please tell me how we can refreeze the ice caps.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itr5cx7 wrote
Regi0 t1_itr5w3u wrote
"Because of the glacial pace at which natural carbon sinks absorb CO2, much of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted over the past centuries will remain in the atmosphere for many years to come. This will be true even if humans were to stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow—the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era."
Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with the ice caps, this further supports my argument that what we're doing to the planet is basically permanent. The timescale to undo what we've done is hilariously beyond any human lifespan, and it hinges on the impossibility of all carbon emissions ceasing simultaneously.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itr713n wrote
> >Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with the ice caps,
Lol, you really don't know anything about global warming, do you?
>this further supports my argument that what we're doing to the planet is basically permanent. The timescale to undo what we've done is hilariously beyond any human lifespan, and it hinges on the impossibility of all carbon emissions ceasing simultaneously.
No, it proves you were spewing bullcrap. The damage is not permanent like you claimed and it can be reversed, both naturally and artificially.
Regi0 t1_itr88lv wrote
Technically nothing is permanent since everything changes, dies, erodes, etc. given a long enough timescale. But I digress, yes, technically what we've done is reversible, but like your source claims, it would take an insane amount of time to reverse what we've done. That time estimate hinges entirely on humanity ceasing all excess carbon emissions at once, meaning the amount of time it would take to reverse the effects grows larger with each day of carbon emissions pumped into our atmosphere. I hope you're arguing in good faith, because if you are, you'd agree with me that in our current economy, we're not going to just suddenly stop burning coal, gas, oil, etc.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itrfzs2 wrote
> it would take an insane amount of time to reverse what we've done.
Naturally, without human intervention.
>That time estimate hinges entirely on humanity ceasing all excess carbon emissions at once,
No, as long as humanity doesn't go extinct and eventually we stop adding carbon dioxide to the environment the change can be reversed. Nothing that China is doing is permanent the same way nothing that the US is doing is permanent, but if you're going to focus solely on China ignoring the centuries of Western pollution to the world then you are not only technically wrong, you are politically blind
Regi0 t1_itrzois wrote
I'm not, in fact I mentioned in other comment reply chains to my original comment that consumerism is the ultimate problem, not China specifically. US has consumerist demands, China fulfills them by whatever means necessary. It's all fucked.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments