@Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml

Lemmygrad. ml is explicitly ML.

Exploring Left-Wing Extremism on the Decentralized Web: An Analysis of Lemmygrad. ml

… findings reveal a substantial increase in user activity and toxicity levels following the migration of these subreddits to Lemmygrad. ml. We also identify posts that support authoritarian regimes, endorse the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and feature anti-Zionist and antisemitic content … Moreover, their support can extend beyond backing these authoritarian regimes, even cheering on their violent actions, as evidenced by their posts on the Russian invasion of Ukraine …

The whole study makes a good read.

never anything that paints China (let alone its government) in the slightest positive light

Feel free to change that. Just use quite sensible and well-sourced articles.

How many journalists have taken sponsored China trips? Or trips to any other country?

Sorry, I replaced the link now.

We know how things work.

You are just parroting propaganda.

It’s time for some allies, like Europe

Yeah, but Carney didn’t make a deal with Europe last week but rather with another bully that doesn’t value the rule of law. I hope Mr. Carney corrects this mistake.

Oh, no, your fellow Chinese worker will still suffer from forced labour under the same regime while the markup goes the corporation owner. It’s just now a Chinese company owner under the control of a dictator. That’s the same thing, but you criticize the one and praise the other. What a hypocrisy.

with a small markup for the fellow poorly paid American assembly worker

You forget that the fellow poorly paid Chinese assembly worker endures even more hardship under a coerced labour regime. We must have transparent global supply chains - something China has been lobbying against for years - ‘if this shit is to ever get better.’

So we see another chapter of coercion, it’s just that tankies will now whining while applauding when China is doing the same thing. Beijing has been bullying its ‘partner’ countries for decades, now we have one bully more in the world. Canada would be well-advised if it traded away as much as it can from both the U.S. and China.

Has someone said that a rules-based order and democratic systems are better for the world than these regimes?

All carmakers are doing that, not just Toyota. If someone posts a similar report about China’s BYD you are whatabouted to death, but if it is about a non-Chinese carmaker, there are no whataboutisms.

Is the data collection good or bad now? Should we have digital sovereignty in Europe and other democracies or just import ChEaP cHiNeSe CaRs?

[Edit typo.]

Call it whatever you want, but these kinds of comments always work in one direction: defending China, or at least distracting from the Chinese government’s crimes by just shouting out “Gaza” or “Israel” or “UAE” or anything that.

It never goes the other way, though. There are many posts here calling out Israel and the US, for example, but there you don’t see such comments saying, "But China’s genocide … "

What you are doing is widespread here in the Lemmyverse. It’s some sort of “the West bad, China bad okay” stance. I call this whataboutism. It shows your hypocrisy.

@mrdown@lemmy.world

[Edit typo.]

What an absurdly weird whataboutism. As if one crime would justify another.

Yeah, sure. China (the world’s biggest polluter that has been increasing its emissions for decades with no end in sight and apparently no intention to even slow down its increase) and some oil producing countries are blocking the road for a fossil fuel phase out, but you’re criticizing others. Classic.

Australia joins the group of these 24 countries, and they didn’t lobby against phasing out fossil fuels - unlike Russia, China, India, the U.S… Saudi Arabia, and some other oil producing countries.

Australia’s reliance on coal-fired power drops to record low in early 2025, the country pledged to end coal consumption by 2038 or earlier (no, that may be not enough, too, but China, India, Russia & Co are not even close to this, and they do nothing that it gets better).

Australia is among only 24 countries that will meet next April for a conference co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands to work on plans for a complete fossil fuel phase-out. Other participating countries include Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Panama, Spain, Slovenia, Vanuatu and Tuvalu.

It is these countries that are leading the way in the fight for a better climate.

The two largest economies and historical emitters, the US and China, were as conspicuous in their lack of impact during the COP30 as they were before. U.S. President Donald Trump declined to send representatives as the Washington exits from global climate accords.

And China has once again proven to focus more on its own interests in trade rather than stepping into a stronger leadership role in fighting climate change while it’s energy consumption continues to rise at a staggering rate. The country accounts for one third of the of the world’s total energy consumption, compared to a fifth 15 years ago, and is responsible for 90% of the increase in these emissions since 2015. China is portraying itself as a leader in climate policy, but when it’s leader Xi Jinping announced a decrease of over 7% by 2035 a few weeks ago, he carefully avoided specifying a baseline.

Researchers think that China’s NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) falls short to limit global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and striving to stay below 1.5 °C. As Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst who has tracked China’s emissions trends for more than a decade, said in Nature, “Anything less than 20% is definitely not aligned with 2 degrees. Similarly, anything less than 30% is definitely not aligned with 1.5 degrees."

Myllyvirta also says that China’s announced emissions cuts — as 7–10% of an undefined amount, rather than specifying a year as the basis for calculation – leaves the door open for short-term emissions increases.

The different pathways for China to achieve carbon neutrality between 2030 and 2060 could result in different amounts of cumulative emissions, says Myllyvirta. “What matters for the climate is the total amount of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere over time,” he says, adding that this is why cutting emissions fast early on is important.

So we should not criticize Australia here, but rather China, the U.S., Russia, and Russia as it is them that opposed to phase out fossil fuels.

Portraying China as supporting too big to fail automakers who can’t seem to capture markets

This is not what the report says (and the price wars in China’s domestic markets are much longer than a year).

@Jason Kraus

has flat lined their CO2 emissions for the last 18 months

This is misleading and incomplete information that makes it outright false.

China is set to miss its target to cut carbon intensity – the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – from 2020 to 2025. The country would need steeper reductions to hit the it’s 2030 goal.

Emissions from the production of cement and other building materials indeed fell by 7% in the third quarter of 2025, while emissions from the metals industry fell 1%. This is due, however, not to environmental policy in Beijing, but rather to the ongoing real-estate crisis, as the construction sector uses most of the country’s steel and cement output.

Power-sector emissions were also flat year-on-year in Q3/2025, with emissions from transport fell by 5%, but oil consumption in other sectors grew by 10%, driven by chemical industry expansion. This resulted in a 2% rise in oil consumption overall. Gas demand and emissions grew by 3% overall in Q3, with consumption in the power sector up by 9% and by 2% in other sectors.

@Tiresia@slrpnk.net

I wrote that recently in another thread, and it’s true also here.

Your view is oversimplified to a degree that it is outright false.

However, it is not necessary to engage in such a discussion as it is not relevant here when we look at the data and how it is calculated.

According to the scientists at the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) cited in the linked report, China is behind by any metric, including by what the CAT scientists call a country’s “fair share.” This reflects the “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances”, as stated in the Paris agreement (Article 4.3),

Here you can find China’s CAT rating. As you can see, China’s ‘policy and actions against fair share’ is rated as insufficient, with its overall rating highly insufficient.

As you can also see in the CAT rating, no country is on track, but China is among those countries most behind by any comparative standards.

Yeah, the EU and other Western regions and states have only slowly begun to do the same, namely banning Chinese and other foreign. It’s late and not enough, but at least it gains traction also in the West.

This is the first part, as the article says.