I love when people get called out for being shitty, and the immediate defense is "you're arguing in bad faith"

this wasn't an argument. you said something stupid, I called you out for it. instead of criticizing the western world for doing _checks notes_ fucking nothing about climate change, you're going after the country investing billions into the climate for no other reason than you don't like the government.

I'd be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world - but it's not, so that's not really relevant commentary. If I showed up to say something like "why aren't western countries doing better" it would be a valid point, but would absolutely not address the issue - that china is in no uncertain terms absolutely failing the environment. Trying to deflect that with accusations of racism is... transparent, at very least because you have yet to address the criticism but only the form my argument takes.

Why are you so biased that you can't even accept criticism of a group you support might be legitimate in an article explicitly about the actions of said group? People from the US do that all the time, what makes China special?

I’d be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world

ok, I didn't even read further than that in your comment because it's obvious you did not read the article at all. even the headline itself should give you a fucking clue, but the article heavily relies on comparing China to the US. you would have known that if you had bothered to get over your knee-jerk reaction long enough to actually read it.

Sigh. 4 out of 13 of the paragraphs in that article are about trump's behavior and there isn't even a mention of another country besides the US and china. Kinda hard to criticize what just isn't there (at least, if you're arguing in good faith...)

Shockingly you continue to not address the criticism, just the form of the argument. I can't imagine why that would be.

Definition of argue

Definition of 'argue' by Merriam-Webster

^{Merriam-Webster Dictionary}

here isn’t even a mention of another country

wrong again.

I can’t imagine why that would be.

ah, yes, the good old "you support the CCP because you criticized the US" line. you aren't half as clever as you think you are, liberal, or you would know I'm banned from .ML and Hexbear and my whole post history is me shitting on tankies.

wrong again.

Oh you know what, you're absolutely right. The article (ten more paragraphs!) wasn't loading due to their godawful... comment widget? I'm not sure what happened there. BUT I'll amend my prior claim since Brazil is in there too! And while hardly a western-aligned country, and I am deeply skeptical of their ability to follow through on their claims, I'll give them credit for thumbing their nose at both the US' and China's utterly pathetic showing with those climate targets. Here's hoping they can stick to them, and that COP30 will follow in their example.

Hardly an article relying on contrasting the US and China, though I suppose quoting Xi that much really does throw some spectacular shade by putting trump's whole... thing... as contrast.

ah, yes, the good old “you support the CCP because you criticized the US” line.

Uhm... no, I just think you're arguing in bad faith. That's been my whole thesis, and it's maybe worth introspecting that you've directly jumped to being persecuted for supporting china instead of the thing I keep criticizing you for.

Why are you so biased that you can't even accept criticism of a group you support

Wrong again.

Listen, it’s never gonna work out between us if you don’t even read your own comments. But I’ll give you credit, that’s the first time I’ve seen somebody strawman their own arguments.

Let me know if you ever wanna respond to the substance here (to reiterate: criticizing china is absolutely warranted, especially in light of how much better Brazil is doing) instead of issues to take with the form of the argument, it'll be interesting.

Wrong again.

Bud that's the whole point here - you're supporting the group (edit: in this case the CCP) by rejecting legitimate criticism with bad faith meandering (accusations of racism and classic whattaboutisms). Despite your presumed personal position you 100% are supporting the utterly pathetic chinese environmental goals here.

Despite your presumed personal position you 100% are supporting the utterly pathetic chinese environmental goals here.

Did you ever wonder why everyone else in the comments is congratulating China? It’s because the rest is us don’t see an article about how China is doing the best out of all the countries in the entire world, and automatically go “hmm, it’s China and they’re authoritarian, so it’s not good enough”.

Of course they could do better. You can always do better. The rest of the world could do better. The point here is nobody else is doing anywhere near as well. You chose to focus on criticism because you do t like the politics of the nation leading the pack. China hasn’t even reached their goals, which again you would know if you read the article. But even their meager progress is far better than the goals the US has set, which is to go backwards and adopt more fossil fuels, cutting out as much renewables as possible.

So yeah, I’m supporting the progress China has made in reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. Any progress is progress, and they have more progress than anyone right now.

everyone else in the comments

You're trying to misrepresent reality again - go look at the comments (of which 1/2 are now just us two bickering); and fully 1/2 (7/14 (excluding us two), of the (as of posting) 28 total comments (including us two) (edit: this is confusingly worded, I apologize)) of the other comments in this thread are critical of the claims, most of those criticizing how sorry this promise is from China. You can't just assert easily-verified falsehoods as truth and then claim some kind of victory from that (despite that practically being codified US policy at this point...).

I chose to focus on criticism because they are leading the pack, and their efforts are sad, much like a great many other people in this thread are doing. I suppose a case could be made for that to include their politics, since politics shapes policy, but that'd be a kinda pointless semantic argument to make. My criticism of China has nothing to do with my distatste for the CCP directly and everything to do with them being the #1 global emitter of greenhouse gasses, and then even in lip-service planning to do the barest minimum. I'm not criticizing the US right now because the US is not the leader of the pack, or even relevant in this discussion (beyond being the #2 emitter).

To put in context something, this year if China's planed 10% reduction had gone through instantly at the start of the year, they would still have produced more than double the greenhouse gas emissions of the US. THEY HAVE TO DO BETTER. We all do, yes, but THEY ESPECIALLY have to do better. It ain't fucking racism to criticize the #1 culprit for choosing a target that barely does anything.

do you have any data newer than 2023? because if you look at the per capita greenhouse gases in 2023, china is only at 32/33 and usa, canada, russia, australia etc. all have much worse pollution,

and i would like to know please, what statistics you are basing it on, that china is behind the eu, because at for me it feels like china is atleast trying to do a lot, while from the eu countries i only ever hear complains about having to do anything for the enviroment, which only gets worse by this right wing people popping up everywhere.
i would like it very much to be convinced that the eu countries are actually doing anything.

First, most credit should be based on recent years. You can only ask for relative progress, meaning improving year over year from recent progress instead of going from 0 to 100% renewables by tomorrow.

EU has greatest success in recent years in terms of emission reductions, but only because their energy growth has been slowing. China has much higher renewables growth from a much higher renewables base, but their emission reductions are more modest because of massive energy growth relative to massive manufacturing growth. At the same time, any growth rate at all from here is going to lead to massive emission reductions in upcomming years, just as it can continue in EU.

Trump's UN speech is desperate extortion/war cry on EU and world to end breakthrough dead ender energy extermination on the cusp of clear human victory path.