One thing you can see them doing is trying to move people out of very old coal heated housing and into apartment buildings...

Some of my relatives in law live in these old buildings, here's their kitchen: https://travel.devonwinrick.com/images/IMG_20191215_111655%2...

Of course China is serious about environment, it affects Chinese people before everyone else. We have been improvements in many ways in China.

Well, that is certainly one way of looking at things. I have never encountered anyone who actually believes that, until now. The fact of the matter is that most people don't care a whole lot about global warming one way or another. Not in the U.S. Not in Europe, and certainly not in China. To be clear, I'm not saying that, if asked, "Do you care?" that they respond "No, I don't care." People like to view themselves as caring about things. The answer to "Do you care about X" is usually "Of course I care." - at least when you are asked by a stranger. But if asked "How much are you willing to spend", the answer is usually "very little.". So the revealed preferences in the US are not too different from revealed preferences in China.

68% of Americans wouldn't pay more than $10 a month to combat climate change. That's to "combat", not even "solve".

So I don't think most people are unsettled or even surprised at China ignoring climate change. If we are only willing to pay less than $120 per year, then you would expect a nation with 1/3 our income to be willing to spend very little. Think of all the ridiculous things Americans spend $10 a month on. Then draw a line and put global warming below that line. So an objective assessment doesn't lead to any uncomfortable truths other than there is only a minority that is truly concerned about this issue, and that such concern appears to be a luxury good even in the West, and therefore will not be a major factor in the developing world. An even cursory awareness of what's going on in the world would have made this very clear a long time ago to anyone who was willing to look outside their own social circle.

In the more extreme slivers of speculation, climate change might be the thing that undoes the very concept of nation state sovereignty, when the model of absolute freedom to do whatever runs into the reality that we have the technology to affect the entire earth. On the other hand this model wasn't all that old to begin with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

I think you're absolutely right, but would argue that the majority in developed countries do not realize it whatsoever. Instead they simply take for granted that they are the problem so that they may imagine themselves the solution (c.f. carbon taxes in Canada, rich cities declaring climate emergencies they pretend they can help solve, etc.).

For developing world, it sucks both ways, with or without global warming.

Now that they are developed, it is unjust and unfair of them to say, "Hey we polluted the world in the first place, and became developed. Now you must put climate before development and remain underdeveloped".

As I see it, developed nations should reduce emission much below their goals so that countries like China, India, Indoneshia, and Brazil can prosper.

You cannot just say- remain poor because climate. We are rich and we brought this situation.

No, all it shows is how selfish China is. It's a textbook tragedy of the commons. They get all the benefit of polluting but make us take on most of the cost. If there were somehow a way to make it so that all of China's pollution affected only China, they'd be taking it much more seriously, developed or undeveloped.

Ne'er have truer words been spoken. Welcome to the real world outside of the HN bubble.