this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
229 points (99.6% liked)

World News

50689 readers
2331 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Report to be discussed at Cop30 says global agreements should target carbon intensive activities and ‘ultra high net worth individuals’

The roadmap will form the basis of discussions of climate finance at Cop30. Last year’s “conference of the parties” in Baku set a goal of £1.3tn to be provided annually to poor countries by 2035, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. But there was a bitter taste for many when rich countries pledged to stump up only $300bn of that sum, leaving the rest to come from potential new taxes and levies, the private sector, and related sources.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Building new coal plants in any country at any time is absolutely NOT a good solution. The USA also exports only a small fraction of what China uses to them. So I don't see how the US is the "big problem" in this specific case.The majority of their coal come from Indonesia. Creating a combination of nat gas, hydro nuclear and solar infrastructure is the best solution. I'm not talking out of my ass here, I'm a mechanical engineer in the stationary engineering field working at a major power plant.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Huh?

We're moving around 120 million tons of coal to China annually...

I'm not saying America should burn coal.

I'm saying if we're blowing up our mountains to get it, burning it here where it's regulated would be better than shipping 120,000,000 tons of coal to China so they could burn it over there.

Obviously the ideal would be to leave it buried in the ground and invest in renewables.

My point is domestic use isn't the metric to look at, it's domestic production. Other countries can't burn our coal when there's a mountain on top of it.

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes we do, China burns 4.5 BILLION tons year so as I said, we export a small fraction of what they use. So again your statement that the US is the BIG problem is wrong. I agree we don't need to dig coal for fuel anymore. But your assumption this is a US problem isn't even close to the whole picture.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes we do,

I literally can't tell what that's supposed to mean...

But clearly explaining this more times isn't going to help

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I stated digging coal is bad in any case. My point is your blaming the US as the major contributor is inaccurate based on the numbers.