As environmental quality continued to improve, in the 339 cities monitored at or above prefecture level, 72.6 percent met air quality standards, official data showed.
If you measure economic activity in terms of domestic currency per capita, then you’re effectively measuring against the amount of money available. It’s a stupid way to measure anything.
It’s also stupid to measure co2 emissions against economic activity if you don’t use the local currency as the point of reference because a) the planet doesn’t care how economically active society is when the climate goes downhill and b) you then usually use another currency, probably usd, as a point of reference, so even then inflation will keep boosting numbers, regardless of actual emissions.
The only number that counts is emissions per capita. China is terrible when it comes to that though, so I get why tankies keep inventing bullshit metrics to make it seem a little less horrific.
What does the US have to do with that? The US are obviously even worse. So what? China’s emissions are rising dramatically and that’s an issue. Saying that’s not too bad because they have more money now is dumb because, as I said, the only relevant measurement is emissions per capita. Which should be zero (which they are nowhere) or declining (which china’s don’t). It’s not a hard concept.
The US comparison matters since you called China “terrible” despite half the per capita emissions as the only reel peer power. (Even with US manufacturing being largely nonexistent)
The US comparison is stupid because the US are literally the worst offender when it comes to emissions per capita. That way you’re hanging the bar so low you’ll always end up winning.
I’m well aware that China installs more renewables than anybody else. They also install much, much more coal than anybody else. So yeah, it could be worse, but it’s still horrific and greenwashing that by comparing it to metrics of economic growth doesn’t change it.
The US comparison isn’t “stupid”, it’s essential when you called China “terrible” on per capita emissions despite them ranking ~25th globally with emissions roughly half the US level. Even ignoring peer comparisons, China’s per capita footprint is only slightly above the EU average despite manufacturing goods for Western consumption, many EU countries appear “cleaner” only because they offshored production emissions to China .
Your coal argument also ignores context: China’s new coal units are ultra-supercritical (44–48% efficiency vs. ~30% for older plants), replacing dirtier capacity and lowering net emissions per kWh Global Energy Prize. Crucially, coal utilization has fallen to ~51% as renewables cover demand growth, solar and wind supplied ~90% of new electricity demand in Q3 2025 alone Carbon Brief.
China also has 339 GW of wind/solar under construction, nearly twice the rest of the world combined Global Energy Monitor. Emissions have been flat or falling for 18+ months, consistent with a 2024 peak Carbon Brief. If you’re citing OWID but ignoring rank data, consumption-based accounting, plant efficiency, and quarterly trends, you’re not engaging with the actual metrics you’re pushing a narrative.
Replacing old inefficient plants with new effecient ones reducing net emissions is good yes. I feel bad for your teachers having a student who’s brain has clearly been medically removed.
If you measure economic activity in terms of domestic currency per capita, then you’re effectively measuring against the amount of money available. It’s a stupid way to measure anything.
It’s also stupid to measure co2 emissions against economic activity if you don’t use the local currency as the point of reference because a) the planet doesn’t care how economically active society is when the climate goes downhill and b) you then usually use another currency, probably usd, as a point of reference, so even then inflation will keep boosting numbers, regardless of actual emissions.
The only number that counts is emissions per capita. China is terrible when it comes to that though, so I get why tankies keep inventing bullshit metrics to make it seem a little less horrific.
China’s emissions per capita are about half those of the US while being the factory of the world?
In 2022, the per capita CO2 emissions in the United States were approximately 14.21 tons, while in China, they were about 8.89 tons.
Why are you so arrogantly wrong? Did you not look into it at all? Do you get off on humiliating yourself?
What does the US have to do with that? The US are obviously even worse. So what? China’s emissions are rising dramatically and that’s an issue. Saying that’s not too bad because they have more money now is dumb because, as I said, the only relevant measurement is emissions per capita. Which should be zero (which they are nowhere) or declining (which china’s don’t). It’s not a hard concept.
The US comparison matters since you called China “terrible” despite half the per capita emissions as the only reel peer power. (Even with US manufacturing being largely nonexistent)
China’s emissions likely peaked in 2024 and are declining https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-18-months/ . They are also building roughly twice the new renewable capacity than the rest of the world combined https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-continues-to-lead-the-world-in-wind-and-solar-with-twice-as-much-capacity-under-construction-as-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/
Check the actual data before lecturing on “hard concepts.” Or are you dumb on purpose?
The US comparison is stupid because the US are literally the worst offender when it comes to emissions per capita. That way you’re hanging the bar so low you’ll always end up winning.
I linked the emissions statistics I used earlier: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china
I’m well aware that China installs more renewables than anybody else. They also install much, much more coal than anybody else. So yeah, it could be worse, but it’s still horrific and greenwashing that by comparing it to metrics of economic growth doesn’t change it.
The US comparison isn’t “stupid”, it’s essential when you called China “terrible” on per capita emissions despite them ranking ~25th globally with emissions roughly half the US level. Even ignoring peer comparisons, China’s per capita footprint is only slightly above the EU average despite manufacturing goods for Western consumption, many EU countries appear “cleaner” only because they offshored production emissions to China .
Your coal argument also ignores context: China’s new coal units are ultra-supercritical (44–48% efficiency vs. ~30% for older plants), replacing dirtier capacity and lowering net emissions per kWh Global Energy Prize. Crucially, coal utilization has fallen to ~51% as renewables cover demand growth, solar and wind supplied ~90% of new electricity demand in Q3 2025 alone Carbon Brief.
China also has 339 GW of wind/solar under construction, nearly twice the rest of the world combined Global Energy Monitor. Emissions have been flat or falling for 18+ months, consistent with a 2024 peak Carbon Brief. If you’re citing OWID but ignoring rank data, consumption-based accounting, plant efficiency, and quarterly trends, you’re not engaging with the actual metrics you’re pushing a narrative.
Lol so we’re defending Gigawatts worth of new coal plants now? Arguing that those are the better ones? This is just ridiculous.
Replacing old inefficient plants with new effecient ones reducing net emissions is good yes. I feel bad for your teachers having a student who’s brain has clearly been medically removed.
…sigh. What a child.
thank you for providing an example of a fractally wrong statement