• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, Scandinavian countries just have a healthy government. Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries. Though, them and France at least have started a nuclear build-out, which is needed to 100% de-carbonize the grid.

      • ramenbellic@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        China manages to be the manufacturing hub of the world AND have a lower carbon footprint per capita than the United States. We don’t have time to keep pointing fingers and making excuses, we need to be making changes.

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I… don’t think we disagree? China has a corrupt communist government. I was specifically referring to socialist governments, and the ones that are frequently (mis)labelled as socialist are doing a lot better on oil consumption than either China or the United States.

        • Robaque@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you’re splitting hairs about communism, socialism, and “mislabelling” (even though socialism is a generic term that encompasses communism…?), why are you describing China’s government as communist? Communism is (ideally, at least) stateless, and like all socialist idologies it is fundamentally anti-capitalist.

          You’re right that the Nordic model isn’t socialist, though. It’s a blend of social democracy and corporatism.

        • nrezcm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is it not true? Per capital they are lower but that doesn’t mean much when you have over a billion people. I think a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful awful climate impacts.

          • kenbw2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s a bit disingenuous to blame a country for having high emissions when it has 10x the number of people

            That means it needs 10x the amount of electricity, vehicle fuel etc.

            By the same logic, the Vatican City is a world leader in climate policy.

            Should we start comparing China with the Americas and Europe combined? Because that’s a more like-for-like comparison

            • nrezcm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which is why I said a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful climate impact. Diluting their impact behind a per capita graph is misleading. Also out of all my travels in the world China has been the only country I could visibly see that impact without having traveled to it or even being super close. The morning chemical smog I’d see in Korea on a regular basis compares to nothing else I’ve seen and I’ve lived in some pretty dirty regions.