▲ 387 ▼ Americans Can’t Buy Chinese EVs. Waymo Is Importing Thousands (www.forbes.com) submitted 1 week ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/news@lemmy.world 67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 28 points 1 week ago (1 child) Except that's the reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago (1 child) Why because that's how you guys feel and because you state the claim with confidence (but nothing else)? The auto industry in the US is already dominated by foreign brands and has been for quite a long time. It doesn't make any sense as being the reason because that ship sailed long ago, and as I already described, two of the three remaining US automakers don't even bother competing in the segment that Chinese EVs operate in, so what US company does it protect apart from Tesla which makes up a whopping 3% of the entire market? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (1 child) It doesn't matter if the competitor is a gas car or not, an EV on the market is a car on the market, at a set price on the market. There are no way, no EV for me, nuh uh people just as well as there are EV or nothing people, just as well as there are I just gotta get to work, man people. what US company does it protect apart from Tesla which makes up a whopping 3% of the entire market? All of them. No EV? Factor gas into the monthly payment. EV? Consider the gas as part of the monthly payment. Quit building fake goal posts, a car is a car, and any customer will buy one if it suits their budget. If a Chinese car suited their budget, they'd buy it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago (2 children) you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though That wasn't really part of my grievance. Our domestic brands are even foreign brands. Ford and Chevy motors are made in Mexico and the electronics are all Chinese or Mitsubishi accross every US brand. The optics shit about domestic vs foreign is more political than real. I see more MAGA fucktards in Nissan Leafs due to poverty than I do Dodge Chargers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail? The answer is simple. Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don't want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war. The industry they're protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now. They're telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago (1 child) Why because that's how you guys feel and because you state the claim with confidence (but nothing else)? The auto industry in the US is already dominated by foreign brands and has been for quite a long time. It doesn't make any sense as being the reason because that ship sailed long ago, and as I already described, two of the three remaining US automakers don't even bother competing in the segment that Chinese EVs operate in, so what US company does it protect apart from Tesla which makes up a whopping 3% of the entire market? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (1 child) It doesn't matter if the competitor is a gas car or not, an EV on the market is a car on the market, at a set price on the market. There are no way, no EV for me, nuh uh people just as well as there are EV or nothing people, just as well as there are I just gotta get to work, man people. what US company does it protect apart from Tesla which makes up a whopping 3% of the entire market? All of them. No EV? Factor gas into the monthly payment. EV? Consider the gas as part of the monthly payment. Quit building fake goal posts, a car is a car, and any customer will buy one if it suits their budget. If a Chinese car suited their budget, they'd buy it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago (2 children) you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though That wasn't really part of my grievance. Our domestic brands are even foreign brands. Ford and Chevy motors are made in Mexico and the electronics are all Chinese or Mitsubishi accross every US brand. The optics shit about domestic vs foreign is more political than real. I see more MAGA fucktards in Nissan Leafs due to poverty than I do Dodge Chargers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail? The answer is simple. Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don't want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war. The industry they're protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now. They're telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (1 child) It doesn't matter if the competitor is a gas car or not, an EV on the market is a car on the market, at a set price on the market. There are no way, no EV for me, nuh uh people just as well as there are EV or nothing people, just as well as there are I just gotta get to work, man people. what US company does it protect apart from Tesla which makes up a whopping 3% of the entire market? All of them. No EV? Factor gas into the monthly payment. EV? Consider the gas as part of the monthly payment. Quit building fake goal posts, a car is a car, and any customer will buy one if it suits their budget. If a Chinese car suited their budget, they'd buy it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago (2 children) you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though That wasn't really part of my grievance. Our domestic brands are even foreign brands. Ford and Chevy motors are made in Mexico and the electronics are all Chinese or Mitsubishi accross every US brand. The optics shit about domestic vs foreign is more political than real. I see more MAGA fucktards in Nissan Leafs due to poverty than I do Dodge Chargers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail? The answer is simple. Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don't want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war. The industry they're protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now. They're telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago (2 children) you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though That wasn't really part of my grievance. Our domestic brands are even foreign brands. Ford and Chevy motors are made in Mexico and the electronics are all Chinese or Mitsubishi accross every US brand. The optics shit about domestic vs foreign is more political than real. I see more MAGA fucktards in Nissan Leafs due to poverty than I do Dodge Chargers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail? The answer is simple. Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don't want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war. The industry they're protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now. They're telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though That wasn't really part of my grievance. Our domestic brands are even foreign brands. Ford and Chevy motors are made in Mexico and the electronics are all Chinese or Mitsubishi accross every US brand. The optics shit about domestic vs foreign is more political than real. I see more MAGA fucktards in Nissan Leafs due to poverty than I do Dodge Chargers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail? The answer is simple. Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don't want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war. The industry they're protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now. They're telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex. For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now. The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy. https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Can I have your source for that graph? It says '2025 projected'. When was that 'projected'? The year China really started laying solar was 2024. Its interesting data, but I'm not sure it responds to the point I'm making. My point is not that China is currently green but that they are in the process of building the infrastructure required for the transition away from fossil fuels. I think describing what they've done so far as 'some success' is understating the scale of what they've accplished. Especially when compared to their contemporaries such as the US. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Worth pointing out that over the last year China leveled out while they brought more green choices online, while the US suddenly shot up and looks to continue to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago Except this is breaking both trends. By quite a bit. China has never been flat over a year. America had been trending down and now a sharp rise up. And we know why: China is adding green and nuclear, the US is going burn baby burn and avoiding green options. permalink fedilink source parent