this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
477 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

88221 readers
3098 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jhogenbaum@leminal.space 72 points 1 week ago (3 children)

US coal is Largest contributor to THE RISE... But china coal is still 'by far' the largest overall contributor. They write titles kinda misleadingly dramatic.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 86 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Leaving aside the importance of per capita, much of China's emissions is western emissions in a trench coat. And I'm not saying that as a China glazer.

[–] Redjard@reddthat.com 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You can pin power use to exported products, but how that electricity is generated is chinas state decision.
It's not like they did nothing but they could also be way more emission free than they are now.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Aren't they the number 1 in solar and new solar?

Sometimes I look at them and think, well at least they decided to do something about it.

[–] Slacking@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

If it wasn't for them, oil companies would have managed to stall EVs and keep them as luxury vehicles.

China isn't perfect but I can't see them as the problem when they spit out solar panels while the orange moron is literally paying billions to stop renewable projects.

[–] Ocelot79@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yes, China is using a lot of energy in general, and not just for its export-focused economy. The Chinese middle class is huge. They are top consumers of energy in both coal and renewables.

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

They’ve been intentionally using coal to develop away from coal for decades. It’s been a long term strategic thing, using coal power plants to build solar panel factories, then shutting down the coal plants. Meanwhile the USA keeps using coal for fun basically, while being like “well the Chinese are using it too!”. It’s hard for me to see China as the villain here

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s says rise in the headline. Idk what your comment is supposed to be except for ‘china bad’ whataboutism.

[–] Jhogenbaum@leminal.space 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was misled upon first reading and so I wrote this to help others by changing emphasis. Their pull quote strikes me as a misdirection.

[–] reptar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I see what you are saying but I don't think it's a misdirect. I think it's the nature of fast reading. And I'm right there with you.

Or how about this - what should the headline have been?

I think it's pretty straightforward

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

US increased coal use. China did not. So change in global emissions is US's fault, because global change is based on sum of changes. Headline is fine.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So one year of increase vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So one year of increase

You're moving the goalposts of this discussion. We're talking about 2025-2026 activities. From the OP article:

"According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, US coal consumption increased by 10% in 2025, compared to a 0.7% rise globally. "

vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

...so that point is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

In this context, no there isn't a difference. A net increase in coal usage is the only measure. Under that measure both the USA and China have increased domestic coal consumption for energy production.

Even if you want to try to play the "planned economy" card, I doubt in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), which was formally approved at the National People's Congress in March 2026, did the concept of $100+Brent crude prices exist as a recorded target. China has been buying up cheap Urals oil from Russia's sanctioned shadow fleet of tankers for a couple years now increasing their strategic reserves (far higher than even the USA). Even those Urals shipments have largely curtained as its now open season for Ukrainian drones knocking out shadow fleet tankers by literally the dozen.

China is not sinning by increasing coal use any greater than the USA by just reacting to geopolitical market conditions and the need to continue to power its nation.

[–] reptar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Looking at this again later, I think it's the embedded 'quote ' thing headlines like to do. Sometimes they're like 'Banana fiddlesticks', vet says protect against fleas

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Where did you learn that?

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The issue is that an increase in US coal consumption exists solely to placate Appalachians that can't imagine a future beyond what Grandpappy did.

And it's like, Appalachians do, in my opinion, fit the definition of "marginalized group," but at the same time the only way of advancement that they accept is pretending the world can or should be like it was before the rust belt was the rust belt, which Republicans are happy to give them.