this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
114 points (99.1% liked)

earth

12805 readers
14 users here now

The world’s #1 planet!

A community for the discussion of the environment, climate change, ecology, sustainability, nature, and pictures of cute wild animals.

Socialism is the only path out of the global ecological crisis.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

2024 BNEF Investment Trends report just dropped: https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-clean-energy-investment-jumps-17-hits-1-8-trillion-in-2023-according-to-bloombergnef-report/

EU absolutely fucking BODIED lmao

The US did double its investment since last year (141B), China was previously at 546B.

Canada not even mentioned. Embarrassing.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 56 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Why aren't we asking why China wants a habitable planet?

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Life under capitalism is so miserable you wish for the world to end. So burgers actually want to speed up climate change in their death drive.

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago

Accelerationism, but for the heat death of the universe.

[–] refolde@hexbear.net 21 points 2 years ago

So they can rule the world with an iron fist!!!!!!! Duh!

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago

I'm sure we'll get there but the talking points haven't updated past just insisting that actually China is still the biggest polluter in the world, also what does per capita mean.

[–] makotech222@hexbear.net 51 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't consider western/capitalist investments to equal the same as a chinese investment; America regularly just gives private corporations billions of dollars and they do nothing with it.

[–] Tomboys_are_Cute@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was about to say, how much of that money was thrown at companies like Hyperloop and Tesla

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

hyperloop

presumably not enough, since hyperloop is dead lol.

[–] SupFBI@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

It's all just thrown into the stock market.

[–] Dyno@hexbear.net 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just happened to be reading about afforestation today; particularly the Great Green Walls of China and Africa.
Curiously, the wiki article on the Chinese one has a dedicated 'criticism' section, while the African one does not

[–] oregoncom@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

surprised natopedia doesn't slander the Afrifan one too.

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yes, tho The Great Satan per capita investment is bigger than China's

True but US investment is less efficient per dollar than China's and US is also more power hungry per capita rhan China

[–] GaveUp@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago

They also have a larger GDP per capita

Correct way to normalize this data is how many dollars invested per GDP

[–] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

American economy continues to be incredibly inefficient

[–] wombat@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago

china is reaching levels of basedness long thought impossible

[–] idkmybffjoeysteel@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

Whenever they have climate spending bar charts - there needs to be an extra bar for each country also showing military spending.

[–] Raebxeh@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Assuming these are already all in US dollars.

United States:

3.031 x 10^11 dollars / 3.36 x 10^8 people = $902.1/person

China:

6.759 x 10^11 dollars / 1.45 x 10^9 people = $466.1/person

Adjusted for a PPP of 3.62, this is the equivalent of $1685.79/person.

In other words, the US almost doubles China’s per-capita spending, but if you adjust for PPP it’s the other way around. And of course China’s raw spending is about double the US’s.

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I've never fully understood the full impact of what PPP really means - Does this mean China are committing more 'productivity' or 'resource' to renewables per capita? Or does it just mean that they're committing more relative to their GDP/quality of life?

[–] spacedout@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This graph just shows how the three (china, us, eu) are pretty much equal, adjusted for population. If anything, it looks like EU and US are ahead. Without more context, it doesn't prove anything, other than China being the larger economy.