Posted by mrtksn 1/15/2026
No, it was agreed during Kyoto that developed nations would reduce emissions, and developing nations (aka PRC, India) would not. Developing nations could keeping scaling fossil to industrialize until Paris where all countries had to submit climate plan (again not explicitly to reduce), and PRC's was to peak emissions by 2030s, which they're on trend to do early. PRC did what was legally permitted / agreed upon, and if developed nations want to cope / be butthurt and label following the agreement as dirty and not cooperate in the future global projects because they're not financial beneficiaries then that's on them. Also "some" solar and wind is ~ROW combined, which surely is very unimpressive.
> sell the solution
Selling solution to problems is solving problem, selling solutions to problems cheaply is solving said problem faster. As if developed economies did not decarbonize by selling clean tech solutions... which btw PRC bought. PRC simply doing globe a favor by selling real climate solutions at cost and scale that makes global difference, instead of scaling retarded paper solutions like carbon credits from countries that primarily scales spreadsheets.
They are not on trend to peak emissions pre 2030. Here is what happens Reliable china emission data takes a long time to verify and collect. So during the times where good data is not available china makes a ton of claims that will not line up with the next emissions study that comes out.
Ok then why does every country scale up their manufactering to make clean tech solutions. Im sure US, EU, India and Africa could use a few more steel mills and some coal plants to power it, we can handwave the emissions if they end up producing clean tech.
China WAS a developing nation in Paris 2015, GDP per capita $11000, high income $13000 USD.
China JUST around developed nation in 2025, GDP per capita $14000, high income $14000.
They're on trend to peak emissions last year, see study below for PRC emissions trending down for last 18 months. What happens is we have these things called satellites that can detect emissions live, so you get the PREVIOUS study that confirms they have likely already peaked emissions.
Every country SHOULD scale manufacturing, no other country can scale as much as PRC into making stuff commodity tier. If PRC peak domestic emissions and global clean tech exports displaces 5x more emissions than US oil and produce net global reduction in emissions then that's aggregate emission reduction. If other countries can/wants to do that they ought to. It's not about handwaving emissions, it's about realizing 50% of world are developing, they're going to consume and generate massive amounts of shit, aka poverty alleviation, which is moral good, which will require magnitude increase in power and the most sustainable pathway to that is use as much clean tech as possible, clean tech that net displaces more emissions, which is only possible by making clean tech cheap, which PRC is uniquely able to do.
> and PRC's was to peak emissions by 2030s
This appears to be wrong. Peak is supposed to be before 2030. They will not hit it.
1% off according to dashboard analysis for 2025 5 year plan target. There's study from Q4 that PRC emissions has been stalled/trending, i.e. peaked for past 18months. Functionally they've peaked emissions before 2030 NDC commitment.
I speak this having lived south of Moffett airfield where the entire area was poisoned from the degreasers used on the military planes in Moffett Field. It's one of the largest Superfund sites in the US and there are thousands of families living there. It might seem innocuous but I'm wondering whether solar panels in the environment leak any chemicals.
All that said, I don’t think wind and solar are the answers. Geothermal and fusion will need to be the solution.
I think it's a bit better now. I don't think invasions change that much.
Found the Oil & Gas lobbyist / apologist.
China might not have oil, but at least they are trying to figure something else out. Credit to them. Say what you want about The Party (I certainly have) but gotta give credit where and when its due. They have an interest in pushing alternative fuels, and by god they are doing it.
China needs power NOW though.
Seems to me like wind solar batteries and nuclear are the answer, what’s actually being built now in a big way, not pie in the sky like fusion.
Sometimes technologies really do have showstoppers. There are fundamental reasons to think fusion is not going to be competitive. I know of no fundamental reason self driving cars would be impossible. The analogy doesn't work.
Does this question make any sense at all?
The only way this could change net heat if it significantly altered the reflectivity of the surface, and in practice the affected area is too small to matter. As an exaggerated example, I found an article [1] that calculated the area that would need to be covered by solar panels to generate power equal the total global electricity consumption to be 115,625 square miles, approximately equal to the state of New Mexico.
[1] https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/
Direct thermal pollution like this is not yet globally significant, but if demand increased to the point that land constraints actually applied then it would become important.
What is free of side effects for "nature" ?
The NEXT more challenging part is to build the necessary storage and "power network transmission lines" so that the supply can be made ( Large Scale ) reliable - 24/7 , independent of the weather.