First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.

So you simply can’t engage with this discussion in good faith and are throwing up arbitrary roadblocks so you don’t have to think about things like why climate targets differ relative to development and historical emissions.

I refuse your excuses. India is relevant. Either engage in good faith or I will ignore you.

Just baby level ad hominem

Hell yeah glad they’re so stupid

You would probably appreciate developing direct personal connections. Could be irl or on the internet, just not super anonymous text based stuff like Lemmy.

Humans are a product of their circumstances, they can change over time, there is diversity within a community. Overly broad brushing can lead to a despair like you’re describing and it’s good to remember it’s not accurate. At the same time it is good to be aware of tendencies and patterns because the risks you mention are real in various pockets and subsets of society. The best protection against them is relationships with everyone else, and particularly those who are opposed to and organize against, for example, fascists.

Straight into the trash

You’re concerned that I’m focusing too much on capitalism in the global GHG discussion where you asked lazy questions to point fingers at consumers? lmao.

I’m not the reason you’re not engaging in good faith in this conversation. Gotta get over this habit of blaming others for your personal disinterest.

Shell manufactures to produce a profit it doesn’t care who buys unless it is perceived as maximizing profit. Downstream costumers are companies, militaries, and individuals.

Shell doesn’t care whether fuel is considered excess by a military. If excess fuel is used by the military to destroy something Shell manufactured it to do that. I think you’re missing the point.

Shell does manufacture excess fuel and oil. Where else does it come from?

Shell does store fuel and oil including for the US military.

Shell isn’t blowing up the “leftover” US military materials sure. Why does that matter here?

Industry makes it under the expectation to turn a profit. Overproduction is common and so is wasteful or pointless production. It doesn’t even need to be “consumed” so long as they get paid. The US military constantly blows up “leftover” materials to ensure they get the same budget next year, for example. And most sales are between industries. How efficiently are those industries using all their purchases? Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

If consumer choice doesn’t enter the equation then you’ve proved my point. Focus should be on the system itself that forces emissions as part of core economic activity.

Your question was, “Who buys and burns most of the fuel they create and why?” and I answered it and explained how it works. It’s mostly industry The answer is absolutely not simply “consumer choice”, which is quite clear if you review my simple 2-point list.

Here I’ll write it again:

1. Industry that produces commodities for sale in rich Western countries.
2. Industry, military, and direct individual consumption in rich Western countries.

The cause of this is not individual consumer choices, it is capitalism - it seeks to increase capital and nothing else. Capital does not care about the emissions of growing fruit in Central America, packaging in Thailand, and selling in Germany. It cares that you buy the fruit cup for more than they spent on it. And to make that happen, capital had to force wages and production to be depressed and scattered across the globe. And it’s not going to waste money on making the processes themselves independent of fossil fuels so long as fossil fuel prices are low enough - and it keeps them low by constantly seeking more extraction for profit.

The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant.

You brought it up (and are reasserting it in this quote), same as how you bring up China unasked. Clearly you thought it was relevant, you are just trying to avoid responsibility for your claims.

They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.

Which part of “meeting or exceeding their Paris targets” reads as “get a free pass” to you?

And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.

Oh so the decision of what to target isn’t just “no increases immediately”? Glad we agree and can stop pretending it’s so simplistic. Though I see you neglected to acknowledge India’s targets.

Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place.

The commitments of China were nearly an order of magnitude higher than the EU and US actually. By the way the US withdrew and is going hog wild.

For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030.

And they are meeting their commitments, even exceeding them, despite being the primary seat of global production while the EU continues to deindustrialize.

The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.

In production, yes. They are deindustrializing. Their targets are much easier to hit, they follow the global capitalist economic trend re: imperialism, offshoring. It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.

And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down.

It’s really not. You move production to China because overall it is vastly cheaper, primarily due to the much lower costs of labor reproduction and how tightly integrated industries are and can be due to infrastructure and colocation of technical ability. If you want to make something in the US something like half your cost goes to maintaining the humans doing it, and they’re expensive due to massive economic leeches: real estate, finance, insurance. When 80% of a paycheck goes to having a place to live (just renting), going to the doctor, and eating, your labor costs are just subsidizing rent seeking and finance.

Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.

Every country needs to meet their climate commitments. Is yours?

You haven’t listed a single genocide denial. None of these are genocide denial.

For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.

Literally nothing about genocide.

Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him

Literally nothing about genocide and you seem to completely misunderstand kittenz orientation to Allende.

[Captain AmericaCX image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]

Obviously a reply to someone telling them to stop talking.

So you have nothing. I think you should take some time to ask why you are so confident even though it really seems that you are having difficulty reading and understanding what’s in front of you. I don’t mean the latter as an insult, it is perfectly fine to not immediately understand something. The issue is that you act very certain about a topic where you are actually uncertain.

My comment directly replied to what you said. I numbered the bullet points, literally the first thing I wrote.

Various global poverty stats produced by major entities, e.g. below $x per day by the World Bank (which keeps changing its metrics but that’s a different discussion). Capital apologists like (incidentally Epstein-tied) Pinker attempt to claim improvements to human development and well-being for capitalism, but these statistics are highly sensitive to exactly which countries you include as well as what metrics you use. But a trend re: global poverty alleviation is that China is responsible for most of it, sometimes the vast majority for certain statistics, and trends can reverse when you remove it from the equation.

India is a good metric for comparison. Similar population size, similar location, formerly colonized and formally liberated around the same time, but two very different paths. Capitalist economist Amartya Sen estimated tens of millions of deaths in India alone every decade in comparison to China.

exercises in Japan, Malaysia, Philippines

China has zero military exercises in Japan, Malaysia, or the Philippines.

that is indeed my inquiry…

You can’t name them you just demand evidence to the contrary vaguely.

Jorunn did

Except they didn’t. Those screenshots don’t show any genocide denial.

I fail to read China or Uyghurs anywhere in the screenshots. Could you show me which one I am missing?

I already did in another comment it’s just them saying they don’t think there’s scholarly consensus. Why does everyone else have to describe what kittenz actually said but you don’t? Produce actual quotes not screenshots that don’t deny genocide.

PS you are messing up the quote feature.

None of that has kittenz denying a genocide.

If you want to have a conversation you’ll need to reply to what I actually said.

It’s hard to say I think this person is deeply confused

It’s impossible to competently read those screenshots and come away with the idea that, say, kittenz is “denying genocide” re: Pinochet. The others are similarly ridiculous, they just don’t mean thst at all.

Instead of gesturing to a post with like 10 screenshots of text, why not quote kittenz and say what you think is genocide denial.