[-]

Neither-Tension2181@reddit (OP)

Submission Statement

A new report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) suggests that China has significantly altered its methodology for calculating carbon emissions. This change effectively "erases" half of the emissions growth previously reported between 2020 and 2025.

Key Highlights:

Statistical Revision: Under previous metrics, China's emissions appeared to have grown by 14% over the five-year period. The updated data suggests a growth of only 7%.
The Scale: This downward revision accounts for roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 per year—an amount equivalent to the total annual emissions of Germany or South Korea.
Methodology Changes: Researchers believe the shift comes from excluding fossil fuels used for non-energy purposes (like chemicals) and including industrial process emissions (such as cement), where production has slowed due to the domestic property sector slump.
Global Impact: While China is free to define its own metrics under UN frameworks, these retrospective changes make it much easier for the world’s largest emitter to meet its 2030 intensity targets even if absolute emissions continue to rise.

This raises critical questions about transparency and the consistency of international climate commitments at a time when global monitoring is more vital than ever.

[-]

mistrpopo@reddit

Researchers believe the shift comes from excluding fossil fuels used for non-energy purposes (like chemicals) and including industrial process emissions (such as cement), where production has slowed due to the domestic property sector slump.

This sounds like a change towards more accuracy? If "fossil fuels used for non-energy" means plastic manufacturing, it doesn't generate emissions. Am I dumb?

[-]

Neither-Tension2181@reddit (OP)

I don't think you are dumb, but, changing the definition halfway through a ten-year commitment period makes it impossible to track the real progress, and by adding a declining sector and removing a growing one, they made proress look twice as good as they really are on paper without actually changing their environmental impact

[-]

mistrpopo@reddit

So, if the metric is now more accurate, it means that they actually made more progress towards reducing their emissions than previously announced and that is good news for them. Also gives a signal that decarbonating energy is slightly cheaper than previously thought.

[-]

PatrolMan2129@reddit

Maybe, but watching a lot of china videos that I do, I doubt a lot of their "green initiatives" as little more than feelgood with inflated numbers. They will paint entire landscapes green for example or put plastic branches on dead trees when VIPs tour.

[-]

mistrpopo@reddit

Yes, that's for show. You can't fake the giant EV and solar panel industry though, it's starting to flood the entire world (outside the US).

[-]

PatrolMan2129@reddit

Sure can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KqMcqVOh1c

[-]

mem2100@reddit

Where did you see any claim that it was more accurate? The article directly says it is not accurate and that:

The changes mean that China could meet its 2030 climate commitments even if its absolute emissions increase, the report said.

[-]

Moist1981@reddit

I think I agree but I suspect the truth of whether it is or is not more accurate is in the detail that this article just won’t provide enough insight to.

[-]

mem2100@reddit

The article describes this change as designed to understate emissions:

‐----------------------- The changes mean that China could meet its 2030 climate commitments even if its absolute emissions increase, the report said.

[-]

CrimsonBolt33@reddit

It's still used and creates emissions and the like...

Accuracy would be determined based on how everyone else counts

[-]

atascon@reddit

Plastic manufacturing doesn’t generate emissions?

[-]

mistrpopo@reddit

The fossil fuels used specifically for plastic manufacturing (4% of a barrel of crude oil) are not directly burned, they are chemically transformed (via steam cracking) into plastics, textiles, synthetic rubber, etc. Those products contain the carbon that would make CO2.

There is some loss in the transformation, I'm not sure how much loss, and hopefully this is accounted for.

Obviously the chemical transformation requires lots of energy. But from the wording in the article, this is not excluded.

[-]

Jeffery95@reddit

Probably some, but it doesn’t emit as much as burning it does.

[-]

Physical_Ad5702@reddit

Maybe the USA should worry about its own emissions and how much we obfuscate our own statistics before criticizing other countries.

When will it end? The stupid finger pointing while doing the same or worse as those we are trying to expose?

We can use whatever flawed methodology or accounting tricks we want. Physics don’t give a care if we fudge the numbers.

[-]

mem2100@reddit

Xi is dragging China into his dictatorial downspiral. He wants to live in a world where he gets to define what is true. Bad for China, bad for the world.

[-]

sodook@reddit

Seem s to be the soup du jour

[-]

mem2100@reddit

I think the late 90's represented the apex of human freedom. Now we have over 3 billion people in authoritarian or would be authoritarian states:

trump du jour

putin du jour

modi du jour

jinping du jour

[-]

Neither-Tension2181@reddit (OP)

We don't need wumaos or whataboutist on this sub, but thanks for your contribution anyway

[-]

Physical_Ad5702@reddit

No problem :)

Wouldn’t be a good China post without an American hypocrite.

Nice AI submission statement too. Add that to your emissions conundrum while you’re at it.

[-]

mem2100@reddit

You are doing what people did during the real estate bubble. Claiming any critique is anti China bias. It is bad for China and bad for the world.

Your young people won't be loyal if you are constantly lying to them.

[-]

Neither-Tension2181@reddit (OP)

Luckily I'm not American, and thanks for SS. :)

[-]

Moist1981@reddit

Are you suggesting that Reuters is a branch of the US government and it’s not possible to complain about both the US and China’s use of statistics to obfuscate their real impact?

[-]

Neither-Tension2181@reddit (OP)

I dream of a world where people don't speak about us when china is involved, and don't speak about china when us is involved. Maybe i'll just a fool 🤷‍♂️

[-]

NyriasNeo@reddit

Is anyone really gullible enough to believe numbers coming out of china anyway?

[-]

freedcreativity@reddit

Can't lie to Mauna Loa Observatory's atmospheric CO2 measurements. "You can run on for a long time..."

[-]

StatementBot@reddit

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Neither-Tension2181:

Submission Statement

A new report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) suggests that China has significantly altered its methodology for calculating carbon emissions. This change effectively "erases" half of the emissions growth previously reported between 2020 and 2025.

Key Highlights:

Statistical Revision: Under previous metrics, China's emissions appeared to have grown by 14% over the five-year period. The updated data suggests a growth of only 7%.
The Scale: This downward revision accounts for roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 per year—an amount equivalent to the total annual emissions of Germany or South Korea.
Methodology Changes: Researchers believe the shift comes from excluding fossil fuels used for non-energy purposes (like chemicals) and including industrial process emissions (such as cement), where production has slowed due to the domestic property sector slump.
Global Impact: While China is free to define its own metrics under UN frameworks, these retrospective changes make it much easier for the world’s largest emitter to meet its 2030 intensity targets even if absolute emissions continue to rise.

This raises critical questions about transparency and the consistency of international climate commitments at a time when global monitoring is more vital than ever.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1tpuuf2/chinas_new_carbon_metrics_erased_half_of/oobkbac/