News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.