I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics.. But somehow it always ends with "America bad" (which I don't necessarily dispute, but I think is just lazy).
Lets break some things down:
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it's just obfuscation.
These forest growth numbers are great, but they don't tell the whole picture that even with this rate of growth, China will still have less forest than the US in 30 years time.
'Nuclear plants most in production' don't mean much as it can take forever to finish and even then China will have less than France or US.
'Most high speed railroad' it's impressive, but isn't it wasteful to build something just for boasting? The railway is highly underutilised - only 60% use (and that's with the big skew for the major urban centres, some lines barely meet 10%).
To build the three gorges dam 1.3 million people were displaced, and between 70k to 230k died.
China has one of the worst health and safety standards in the world. The death toll in manufacturing and construction is FOUR times higher than the global average.
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means? You can't get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say "no thanks".
Anyways, I think China is doing a lot of good steps for the environment, and it pushes other countries to compete. But saying that China is the only one that can save us, while burning 53% of the world's coal is ridiculous.
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics..
Obviously if you do legitimately wish to have discussions in good faith, it would be a good idea not to immediately accuse people of being propagandized.
In per capita terms, China still produces far less CO2 than other developed nations despite also manufacturing a large amount of the goods those developed nations use.
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means?
For one, I think your death toll for the construction of the three gorges dam is probably out by a couple of magnitudes. Does the end goal justify the means? Almost certainly. China has just compressed an entire 200 years of bloody industrialization (which it has been for every country) into 20 years. There are no countries on Earth that industrialized without vast quantities of blood spilled.
You can't get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say "no thanks".
Do you really think people in western countries often vote for national governments one way or another because of their opinions on workplace health and safety? There aren't many countries where the electorate of a workplace can democratically vote to change their boss if they think it's too dangerous. Again, if you want to have legit good faith discussions, it's not a good idea to suggest that China isn't democratic simply because it doesn't conform to a particular template of democracy that you subscribe to. Many people would say that China is in fact more democratic than the west.
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it's just obfuscation
You raise a good point. The climate looks at the number of people in within legal jurisdictions and takes that into account when calculating how much temperatures go up.
To build the three gorges dam 1.3 million people were displaced, and between 70k to 230k died. China has one of the worst health and safety standards in the world. The death toll in manufacturing and construction is FOUR times higher than the global average.
The fuck you getting these numbers? (I don't expect a reply)
I think that per person data is important, otherwise it's just obfuscation.
I mean you're free to cite those stats if you want. Also they're the industrial powerhouse of the world right now of close their emissions are high, point is they're doing something about it, unlike a certain nation that have exported much of industry but still have crazy high emissions cuz they refuse to update their infrastructure cuz that may cut into their unsuccessful bombing of Yemen budget.
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics.. But somehow it always ends with "America bad" (which I don't necessarily dispute, but I think is just lazy).
Lets break some things down:
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means? You can't get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say "no thanks".
Anyways, I think China is doing a lot of good steps for the environment, and it pushes other countries to compete. But saying that China is the only one that can save us, while burning 53% of the world's coal is ridiculous.
deleted by creator
Obviously if you do legitimately wish to have discussions in good faith, it would be a good idea not to immediately accuse people of being propagandized. In per capita terms, China still produces far less CO2 than other developed nations despite also manufacturing a large amount of the goods those developed nations use.
For one, I think your death toll for the construction of the three gorges dam is probably out by a couple of magnitudes. Does the end goal justify the means? Almost certainly. China has just compressed an entire 200 years of bloody industrialization (which it has been for every country) into 20 years. There are no countries on Earth that industrialized without vast quantities of blood spilled.
Do you really think people in western countries often vote for national governments one way or another because of their opinions on workplace health and safety? There aren't many countries where the electorate of a workplace can democratically vote to change their boss if they think it's too dangerous. Again, if you want to have legit good faith discussions, it's not a good idea to suggest that China isn't democratic simply because it doesn't conform to a particular template of democracy that you subscribe to. Many people would say that China is in fact more democratic than the west.
This is bullshit. US/West would celebrate this news piece every year if there are that many deaths.
deleted by creator
You raise a good point. The climate looks at the number of people in within legal jurisdictions and takes that into account when calculating how much temperatures go up.
The fuck you getting these numbers? (I don't expect a reply)
I mean you're free to cite those stats if you want. Also they're the industrial powerhouse of the world right now of close their emissions are high, point is they're doing something about it, unlike a certain nation that have exported much of industry but still have crazy high emissions cuz they refuse to update their infrastructure cuz that may cut into their unsuccessful bombing of Yemen budget.