https://thereallo.dev/blog/claude-code-prompt-steganography
Why should I trust a US company more than a Chinese one?
Why should I trust a US company more than a Chinese one?
I mean lesser of two evils thinking, if one is intentionally leading us towards climate disaster, while the other isn't then yeah. What else can be said? Should I trust the authoritarian country who believes in engineering and science, or the one that doesn't?
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
The US emits 49% more CO2 per capita than China. And even with the much larger rate of increase, 0.79% to US' 0.3%, it'll still require 81 years to catch up to the US per capita rate [0].
The US aren't the good guys here, not by any means. Compared to my country, for instance, the US' emissions are 3x per capita that of the UK. If you want to argue that we shouldn't be using per capita (although we absolutely should), then that's 45x the UK's CO2 emissions.
[0] log(13.59/9.13) / log(1.0049) = 81.4 years
That is not the actions of a country who “believes in climate change”.
China’s CO2 per capita is ahead of every large developed country except for the US, Australia, and Russia.
There are plenty of large (depending on your definition of large) countries above it. Not just US, Australia and Russia that you are excluding for some reason, but also Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Canada all have significantly developed economically important countries. And they all have GDP per capita much greater than China's. What's your rationale for excluding them? There's a whole host of smaller countries with higher GDP per capita than China between those I listed above and China on the CO2 per capita results.
We should agree that ALL countries should be working to reduce CO2 emissions. But it sounds like you have a strong US bias and given Trump not only denies that climate change is even a thing, has withdrawn from international agreements on reducing emissions and even tries to pressure other countries to burn oil instead of investing in windfarms, it seems a bit disingenuous to try to make out that China is the only country that needs to improve. Before commenting on the speck in someone else's eye, first remove the plank from your own, yadda yadda...
None of those countries have more than 50 million people. Most of them have fewer than 10 million. None of them are going to move the needle on climate change.
The US is clearly not a country to emulate when it comes to co2 emissions. I don’t think China is any more “evil” than the US when it comes to climate change.
But their actions are clearly no the actions of a country who “believes in climate change”.
I'd be willing to bet that you've not been to China. Shenzhen is a very green city, I'll go into that later, but also Beijing and Shanghai have historically had serious problems with smog in summer, and this has got significantly better in recent years as local government pushes companies towards renewable energy sources and close down coal power stations.
For example in Shenzhen, all buses and taxis have to be EV, and around 80% of all new privately owned cars are also EVs. That seems like a city that believes in climate change.
You've got vast swathes of desert covered by solar panels providing electricity further east (although sadly, a lot is waste due to transmission inefficiencies). That seems like a country that believes in climate change.
You've got a country that produces 80% of the world's solar panels, and has over 1/3 of the worldwide installation of solar panels. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.
You've got a country with massive windfarms and a net exporter of wind turbines. Combined, over 1/4 of all electricity in China comes from renewables. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.
You've got a country that uses a lot of battery storage to smooth power demand, and exports these units to pretty much everywhere because they're about the best you can get. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.
You've got a country that built the massive three gorges dam project, started in the 1990s and finished nearly a quarter of a century ago. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.
Sure, there's still a long way to go, and due to the massive energy demands, it still has coal power stations providing about half it's electricity generation needs. That needle is shifting over time, but you know what? It's still half coal and yet it still only has 2/3 the emissions per capita compared to the US. But even if it still has a long way to go, its actions clearly ARE the actions of a country that believes in climate change.
But if you believe climate change is real, and you have authoritarian control over 1/3 of the entire world’s co2 emissions, you wouldn’t be increasing your green house gas emissions, and you wouldn’t have a co2 emission per capita higher than almost all of the developed world.
Because those are the only ones that can move the needle on climate change.
No one cares if Iceland emits more co2 per capita. They have < 400k people.
This isn’t about fairness, this is about whether the actions of the leaders of China care about impacting climate change.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-e...
US numbers are insanely high because cheap hydrocarbons are locally available (=> bad incentives) and everyone is wealthy (that correlation is very strong; just compare Luxembourg, which is much wealthier and more polluting than surrounding nations) and also population density is rather low so more energy wasted for transport.
Well, your theory does not hold at all if you look at Switzerland which pollutes 1/4 of the US per capita. CO2 pollution is not and does not have to be correlated with standard of living.
If you want meaningful CO2/capita comparisons, you also have to be very careful with countries that get ("free") hydro power opportunities for electricity because that distorts the picture massively (same for e.g. Norway).
Big producers of hydrocarbons, on the other hand (like the US) have to work hard to resist the allure of cheap & convenient fossils.
Switzerland is so far ahead in this comparison because they get a lot of CO2-free hydroelectricity (>50%), have to import most hydrocarbons (=> incentive against) and also save massively on transportation because density is much higher.
Some fraction certainly is. Here is trade-adjusted CO2 per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
Note how this still trends down for most western industrialized countries despite positive economic growth over the last two decades.
Consider the gradual takeover of SUVs on the roads (many which to be fair are probably about as efficient as sedans were 20 years ago, albeit more expensive in real terms and significantly more dangerous for pedestrians), or the heavy reliance on trucking rather than rail for heavy freight transportation between logistics hubs, or the heavy reliance on air for long-distance travel due to having literally zero high-speed rail, or the fear of nuclear power, or the overt political opposition to green energy.
Just in comparison to Europe “46 percent of European freight goes by truck while only 11 percent goes by rail, while in the United States more than 40 percent goes by rail while just 30 percent goes on the highway."
This is in ton-miles, so it’s the metric most directly relevant to emissions.
According to eurostat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cac...) that is two thirds of freight volume and it probably still eclipses even rail transport in CO2 efficiency (until full CO2 free rail electrification), so this probably distorts things completely...
If you actually compare the emission fractions, you can see that the US uses much more CO2 per capita on transport compared to Europe (about 3 times as much!):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-sector?cou...
This report from Eurostat is where I got my EU numbers.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-D...
Maritime is around 37% if you only include domestic and intra-EU shipping.
Your report include all shipping that passes through any EU country’s EEZ. So if a ship coming from Africa headed to the US passes by the Azores. A portion of the tonne-kilometers of that ships voyage will show up in your report.
If you do the same thing with the US, the percent of maritime freight movement would also skyrocket.
A summary of some of the points early in the video: in 2025, China added 300GW of solar and 100GW of wind power. In comparison, between 2015 and 2014 China added a total of 78GW of coal power capacity, and for 2025 onwards an additional 161GW has been proposed or reactivated. So, clearly just one year of additional renewables capacity far exceeds the additional coal capacity over multiple years.
Around 5:25, the video then talks about the difference between capacity (maximum possible power) and generation (the amount actually produced) and another chart at 5:52 shows that even though capacity has increased by 6% from 2024 to 2025, actual coal power generation decreased by 1.2% over the same timeframe. So even though the headline is that China is building more coal power stations, in practice they're to cover peak load and to provide energy security and the actual energy production (and hence) emissions is decreasing. FWIW, the same chart shows a similar global trend.
Another point is there is evidence[1] China has cheated and manipulated their data[2]. I don't like this "who are the good guys" game. Anyone playing this game is just looking to create a narrative about good and bad guys.
[1]: https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news...
[2]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-new-carbon-metri...
From the GP [1], US emits 4,632,164,876 and UK emits 292,419,359 tonnes CO2. Which, sorry my bad, is actually only 15x. Looks like I did the ratio of China to UK which is 45x.
But either way, it shows that comparing total emissions is stupid because it's biased against bigger countries. Emissions per capita is a far more sensible metric.
> Also it blames people in the US for energy consumed here to manufacture which includes exports for people abroad.
Sure, but the same can be said about China, in fact I'd argue even more so. As a resident of the UK, the majority of things I buy is made in China, almost nothing from the US.
> The US's per capita emissions are not even far away from other similar nations.
Sure, but they are higher than China's, which was the point I was making to refute the GP. The only reason China's total emissions is 3x US is because its population is 4x US.
> Anyone playing this game is just looking to create a narrative about good and bad guys.
If you re-read what I wrote that you're replying to, you'll see that we agree on that.
It was the GP post that tried to compare China and US in terms of emissions, and deliberately chose total emissions to portray China as significantly worse than the US and getting worse year-on-year, while conveniently ignoring the population size differential and that the increase in emissions is still negligible compared to the overall difference, because it'd take 81 years for China to catch up with the US on emissions per capita. I then compared the US to the UK to show that comparing total emissions instead of per capita is stupid, because the population size matters.
But, as I said in the post you replied to - both countries can and should do much better, but as China isn't even in the top 10% of emissions per capita, this is a worldwide problem and trying to pin it all on China is disingenuous.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
As far as everything else, yes I think this is a global problem, not solely a Chinese problem but I would characterize US-Chinese relations as tense so that tends to amplify finger pointing which I disagree with so yes, we agree.
If the UK imported all its electricity from Poland, it would reduce on a per-capita basis but would increase global
There’s no way to force them to do anything, but this is not that action of a nation that “believes in climate change”.
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...
counterparty uses rhetoric in response
"Hey! No fair!"
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.
So he obviously doesn’t think it’s that much of a threat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You seem to think China is the evil polluter here. Just sort by per capita, and you'll see it's not even in the top 10% most polluting per capita."
Since they produce 1/3 of the co2, 1/3 of the reduction the world needs, needs to come from them. And they are still increasing their emissions. This is not the action of an autocratic leader who believes in climate change.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=21&prefix=false&q...
One interesting thing would be to see how the numbers change over the years alongside the otherwise identical debates.
I've got a bridge to sell you!
China brought 80GW of new coal power online last year. The US added 0, and plans to add 3GW next year (we all know why).
China doesn't care about climate change, they care about energy independence, and conveniently have very little natural fossil fuels besides coal. Which they heavily mine and utilize.
I certainly agree there's other motives (renewables even net them significant trade, like EVs) but it's not as though 'caring about' climate impacts requires selfless virtue, they stand to lose $trillions/year like everyone else.
Geolocated here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B024'57.0%22N+113%C2...
I asked ChatGPT how many coal train cars are required per year to fuel this 4GW plant: About 200 coal train cars per day. That is staggering! It is about 5.25 million tons of coal per year. Multiple that by twenty and that only covers new capacity added last year. It is depressing to see these numbers.
Are you sending them extra money to fund nuclear?
Although it is highly suspicious why they are building so much unused capacity, it is as if they expect something to happen soon.
Also suggest a very good book which details our past decades hard work on energy saftey design: 筚路蓝缕 世纪工程决策建设记述 (Blazing a Trail: How China Decided and Built Its "Projects of the Century")
Book Link: https://book.douban.com/subject/30348776/ 9 out of 10 score for this book.
It also worked. The shame built up in the US so quickly that laws started being struck from the books. The US entered WWII with a segregated military, and by the time it marched into Korea, it was rapidly desegregating. The Soviet Union had successfully made its case that the US had no moral high ground, although it had not made its case for its specific set of limitations of financial and political liberties.
"Whataboutism" is just ad hominem for dummies. But if the real argument is about who is the better man, or what is the better system, ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy. It's simply a change of subject.
It is not a term created to refer to when some American criticizes any of America's official enemies for "X," and someone else reminds you that America also does exactly "X."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
This is a counter accusation and not a defense, ergo, whataboutism.
I personally understand it not as a diversion but as a critique of the moral higher ground implied by the first accusation. Said differently: keep your own house in order.
Actions can be judged on their own merits regardless of who presents the arguments.
Otherwise a victim defending himself is the same as the person assaulting?
Perpetrator: you just stabbed me OMG!
Victim: you were going to rape and kill me
Perpetrator: sorry that’s just whataboutism and definitely not a logical defence. Your actions can be judged on their own merits, regardless of who presents the arguments.
Also, the world isn’t two sides. There are tons of participants on this site who are not in the US that criticize both china and the US (i.e. most of Europe). So you realize how stupid the defense looks of “I’m behaving like a piece of shit because this guy behaves like a piece of shit” when there is a room full of people trying to do the right thing.
If your argument is whataboutism, it means you have no actual defense for your behavior. You’re just appealing to “someone else did something bad”.
It's not whataboutism to talk about the same subject in the context of a different government. In this case LLM corporations.
All you're doing is deflecting valid criticism. It's not whataboutism to talk about how bad American corporations are to American citizens in the context of talking about how supposedly bad Chinese corporations are to American citizens (China doesn't profit off of the deaths of Americans like health insurance companies (this is whataboutism for example)).