AES_Enjoyer @ AES_Enjoyer @reddthat.com

Posts

0

Comments

355

Joined

5 mo. ago

The important metric for the moral debate is cumulative CO2 per capita, because that's the whole reason why we're measuring coal production history, not because we hate coal per se.

I showed you that, even moving to cumulative coal production, China still has 1/3 that of the US per capita, which is the important metric because why the fuck would we compare a country with 1.4bn inhabitants to one with 340mn without taking population size into account.

So yeah, China still has a lot of margin for coal burning until they reach the evil levels of the US/EU, but thankfully they won't because they're the strongest country in renewables, producing essentially 100% of all solar panels in the world.

You're right, you're referring to the original source, which is supposedly already in PPP dollars, so I deleted my previous comment. Thanks for the correction. Regardless, that data is 2011, so it's kinda useless to me because that's before the energy transition of China.

What's the point of comparing coal if not for CO2? Most other forms of pollution from coal are local, not global, the international debate here is on climate change, a western-world inhabitant has no right to say what China should be doing with the local pollution. The discussion on coal is started because of its horrendous climate change potential, which comes exclusively from its cumulative CO2 emissions.

But if you want to compare coal numbers, I ran the calculations using this source for US production and this source for China production. Downloading the CSVs from both sources, I get that the US has produced 85643270043 short tons of coal, which at 21GJ of energy per short ton amount to 496731 TWh, whereas China has extracted 617787 TWh, i.e. a bit below 25% more than the USA. Since China has 1411 mn inhabitants and the US has 340 mn inhabitants, i.e. China has 415% the population of the USA, China has along its existence as a country extracted about 1/3 as much coal per inhabitant than the USA.

So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it's already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don't matter anymore?

If you "aren't sure" about that, then why the hell are you trying to discuss it making guesses instead of informing yourself?

China, a country with 4-5 times the US population, has half the cumulative historic emissions. And yet you have the fucking nerve to blame china for coal. The US and the EU get to pollute the fucking Earth for 2 centuries, and China does a renewable revolution in its 40 years since industrializing and you cry about how they still have plans for coal.

Just, seriously, stop arguing from ignorance. If you do not know about cumulative emissions, don't make "Oh I'm not so sure about that because look at the trends for the past 60 years", as if the US and EU hadn't been emitting fossil CO2 since the fucking late 18th century.

China is 17% of the world and almost 40% of the emissions.

Deceiving metrics. What percentage of world PPP GDP is China? China doesn't pollute due to its population, it pollutes because it's the industrial hub of the world. How comfortable of you to sit in your office and import Chinese products disregarding the effect of that in the pollution metrics of your country and China.

China is only %27 renewables while the EU is 47%

And how long did China take to develop? What are the cumulative CO2 emissions of China vs those of the US or Europe? Furthermore: where are the solar panels that Europe uses manufactured? Europe may have a blossoming wind industry, but photovoltaics are almost entirely Chinese.

What a chauvinistic and anti-Chinese point of view. BTW, you got completely proven wrong on China building more coal than renewables, you're just spitting disinformation.

It's a better measure because western countries outsource manufacturing and associated pollutions to other countries and then pretend to be green.

How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less. Almost as if countries in the process of developing used coal for a reason...

Gotta love how you jump to the whataboutism when it comes to good China news. "Yeah sure, they may be saving the environment by going solar, but what about... Uh... Environmental regulation?"

Like, mate, manufacturing 90% of the world's photovoltaics is the best thing you can environmentally do.

It's not about regulation. China has almost the complete photovoltaic production of the world. Essentially all panels installed in the rest of the world are also Chinese. It's about a smart government knowing which technologies to pursue, instead of things like the Spanish "sun tax" of the 2010s that killed whatever solar industry there might have been in the sunniest country in Europe.

Why exactly do you think there is UV radiation coming from the sun?

No, it's for Actually Existing Socialism, no idea what a student loan provider is, probably something too USian for me to understand. My bachelor university studies in Spain costed less than 6000€ total including tuition and the few books I had to buy, and my master's costed around 1500€. That's without any disability/income price reduction, highest price a Spaniard will pay for public university (around the mid-2010s)

Everyone does it because every country works through the capitalist mode of production, not because it's a necessity of production.

How about you answer to the rest of my comment?

The problem is not of stupidity, but of concerted efforts by fossil fuel lobbies to muddy the research, create anti-green propaganda, climate science denialism, hide determinant research about climate change, and lobby politicians who are against the fight on climate change.

IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate

How is it not a point of debate? I'm giving you arguments as to why it's a very good point of debate and you don't seem to be able to respond to them.

Virtually every country has an IP law

Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that's just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.

IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded

I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the "publish-or-perish" system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants... IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you're trying to argue.

You haven't read my comment because it's too long for your peanut brain, or refuse to address 90% of it because it goes against your propagandised beliefs. Have a good day, ignorant.

It isn't common for people to be sent to slave camps as a punishment for years without knowing why they were charged

Ever heard of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?

That’sthe kind of evil unique to totalitarian shitholes like the USSR.

The Gulag episode lasted less than two decades, by the mid-50s it was a thing of the past and never resurfaced in the country. Almost as if it was a mass hysteria response to Nazi infiltration, and not born out of a desire to oppress people inherently. Again, at the peak of the Gulag system, the prison population was similar to that of modern USA. Much more authoritarian if you ask me

The same nation you are praising

Yes, I'm praising this nation because even if it did mistakes, by industrialising eastern Europe and by eliminating Nazis it saved hundreds of millions of lives.

You wouldn’t be supporting their evil actions in this case if you had any empathy

I'm not supporting the excesses of the Gulag repression, it's something that we can and should criticise. I'm supporting the rest of things of the country, which led to the saving of hundreds of millions of people from hunger, disease and Nazi genocide. The Gulag repression seems horrible until you realize the Nazis murdered 27 million Soviets at that time. It was an extreme measure carried out in extreme times.

You are making a lot of apologies for overt racism

I'm not. If he was jailed for his race that's wrong. You're just making too much criticism of the country thst saved Europe from fascism and which saved hundreds of millions of lives in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred-Year_Marathon

So, no wars, got it. Just overtaking the US through soft power and economic prowess, lmao.

I'm sure all the scientists love it when you tell them they won't be credited for their work and literally anyone will be able to take their idea and do whatever they want with it, that'll do so much to help foster humanity's innate desire to learn and be creative

Literally yes. Why do you think every fucking scientist loves sci-hub and is against Elsevier, and even submits their papers to arxiv for anyone to read for free? You clearly have no experience in the field and are talking out of your arse

What does it mean for corporations to not exist?

Through the existence of exclusively public institutions, whether cooperative or government-owned, which don't work in direct competition but either in cooperation or in emulated competition (I.e. a contest instead of a struggle to drive each other off business).

And it's about coercing people who won't act in good faith with the system into doing so

This literally doesn't happen in public research.

Most people would keep a secret to make money especially if their livelihood depended on it

In public research it works backwards. The more you publish (i.e. make available to the public), the more you earn. You really don't seem to understand the concept of public research.

A corporation will steal your creation and outcompete you in profiting from it if given the opportunity.

Great, so make knowledge accessible to everyone and abolish private corporations.

Without corporations there isn't a need for intellectual property. Public research, i.e. most research, is conducted without intellectual property, and most scientists dedicate their live to science not because they think they can get rich by selling one product, but because they get a decent wage and position for doing so, intellectual stimulus, and social recognition. Research and invention don't necessitate intellectual property, only private companies do.