This is not going to happen. The EU can't even convince itself to stop buying from China.
Second: it's normal for graphs to fall off in their last 1-5 data points because measurements are still coming in.
Third: it's using Chinese data. China has, by the way, publicly declared that they're lying about all public economic data. Please don't use Sinopec data to argue your point.
https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions
China CO2 emissions are rising fast.
Second: India's CO2 emissions are growing according to the article you posted.
Showing graphs which start in the year 2000 (when China had relatively low CO2 emissions) and ending in 2023 (a year before they peaked in 2024) is simply lying with statistics. The most resent data shows that China’s emissions are no longer rising.
Now I know we need to do better then that and emissions need to drop extremely fast if we want to stay under catastrophic 2° C warming. But the truth is that China and India are doing exactly as bad as the rest of the world (including Europe here). And considering the economic factors (that Europe can in fact afford the changes required; but still fall way short) India is doing much better then the rest of the world.
Maybe. For now, for the major cities, it shows that "a rapidly expanding ecological catastrophe" is downgraded to "an expanding ecological catastrophe", and only China's own data is even showing that slowdown. And, by the way, the source of the catastrophe isn't even oil. It's almost exclusively coal. That's what China and India need to stop with. But I hope the slowdown's real.
As for the eternal "someone else must pay, they can afford it" comment. Best of luck convincing the European parliaments. I've actually tried that once. Seriously, not like those "protests". Not going to happen. Plus, frankly, it's harder now than when I tried it and got crushed.
Maybe the Iran war will accomplish what nobody could. Of course it'll probably increase coal use. And to calculate that effect, you should as a rule of thumb take the octane number, divide by 2, and that's how much worse coal is than oil. Compared to car fuel, it's about 50 times worse. So I doubt it.
CO2 emissions per capita, global ranking, 2023
9 United States 13.088
19 China 7.89
97 India 1.922
I hate to say it, but what is probably happening is the economics are causing this, not the Iran war. Renewable energy is simply becoming this much cheaper, that even the capitalist idealogs in the Chinese and the Indian governments are rolling out renewable infrastructure. In other words, capitalism is finally reducing emissions, 20 years too late and 90% too slow.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/690823/china-annual-pm25...
The us on the other hand is well you know blowing up oil all over the world with military conflicts that are wars but aren't wars but are wars that are over but evolving and over and evolving. They are also rolling back green energy projects , fueling data centers with gas, etc.
This is not even remotely close to helping the climate.
If your argument is that there should be a "yet" added to that sentence, sure. Let's hope so. But that's still where we currently stand.
While also increasing carbon-emissions. China is investing in creating more energy from every source.
I fear we need some government imposed limitations. Hoping that every individual will do the right thing doesn't really work it seems.
Or do you mean the policies should affect companies more so than individuals? In that case I agree fully.
...what?? Are you ok with murder and theft as well and whine about how laws against that limit your freedom and are "tyranny"? It's a pretty basic tenet of any groups of humans that's it's fully compatible with freedom to have limits on the extent to which people can cause harm to others. As with all complex dynamic things there are very debatable shades of gray at the edges, but total anarchy objectively does not work.
And it's a fundamental to a functional Free Market that costs be internalized, not externalized. Producers and consumers determine value and generate wealth by comparing the total price of production to the utility offered, but that only works if (amongst other things) the sticker price really is the total price (or at least quite close). If a producer is able to stick their costs onto others then their product will be artificially cheap even if they are less efficient, which will warp the market. That's what we are seeing in energy: fossil fuel producers are dumping cost (in terms of, global warming, ocean acidification, and other forms of pollution) onto the present and future world that they don't have to pay, artificially depressing the cost and alternative solutions that would be net more productive. We could for example be far along on the path of wind and solar power, with enough excess to generate net neutral synthetic hydrocarbons using atmospheric CO2 and water that could then be used in applications like jet engines where they might remain superior.
But the whole point is the market would then be able to determine that naturally, the cost would be built into the price so where and when syngas vs electric vs whatever else provided the best value could emerge. That's not "tyranny", to the extent there is tyranny in the market it's in allowing selfish actors to ruin other people's lives with pollution and preventing those harmed from retaliating.
Because you seem to think doing ANYTHING to limit people is tyranny, and preventing someone from being able to murder or steal would fall under "anything".
> I really don't understand this "totalitarian" thinking.
Way to avoid engaging with any of the things the poster said, instead nitpicking their first sentence.
> where you are free to participate against centralised governance where you must participate
Adding regulations to what companies can do regarding pollution is not a "centralized government" ala the USSR. All functioning societies and governments impose rules like this. The person you are responding to is mentioning that the externality of climate change is not properly factored into the free market, and we need SOME form of regulation/rules to compensate for that.