• Jhogenbaum@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • kestrel7_7@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days 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