Thanks for this pie chart, Anteater. I was about to look for a similar one myself. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions
It shows US emissions at 15%, biggest single contributing country after China at 28%


Frankly, I don't think your point is well made by describing a 15% reduction as "not moving the needle" or "not making a dent". 15% is a decent slice of the pie. If I'm given 15% of a birthday cake, I don't call that insignificant, but apparently you would. We are both seeing the same thing, right? :confused:



This, on the other hand, is a very good point:-

You are missing the point Lisna. The U.S. does make strides toward reducing emissions. The problem is when others do not do the same despite the fact their cumulative output is over double our own. Frownland and elph are not solutions-oriented people so you can't explain to them that in order to solve a problem you have to really focus at the top. Biden already is already pushing in regards to U.S. environmental policy. The U.S. (along with a bunch of others) are buyers in regards to China - China is both the primary producer and the seller. China has more leverage than everyone else by the very nature of this relationship. Therefore, if you can get China to evolve their operations, by extension you reduce every other associated issue. Why? Because the likelihood of these buyer-seller relationships changing at any point before we die of old age is zero, whereas it is more feasible to push China to become more innovative both domestically and otherwise in regards to the production of goods and services.

It's passé to outright reject man-made climate change at this point, so the conservative think tanks that ant is parroting have shifted the focus to downplaying the efficacy of any proposed solution before they happen.

Are you actually capable of debating without constantly strawmanning and putting down other people?

Not with someone who's either lying to me or themselves.

What does that even mean? I don't see you saying other countries are the emission-emitting bad guys when the U.S. exports stuff to them, yet that seems to be your framing here. China's domestic production dwarfs what most people can even imagine, and that produces most of the pollution. The U.S. contributes to the problem by buying stuff from them, but what you are saying isn't true in relation to the actual data.

I'll reiterate: what do you think is a more achievable solution - having every country stop buying **** from everyone, or getting China to fix their outdated energy policies while the U.S. continues their own policy of domestic emission reduction?

**** your false dichotomy
It means that I can tell that you're not approaching this discussion with an honest aim toward accuracy.

Addressing it on a financial level would be more effective than obsessing over which country is Most to Blame via an unwillingness to recognize confounding factors within your statistics.

It isn't a false dichotomy. You don't have actual solutions. The U.S. isn't going to change their buying habits, so it is a moot point no matter how you try to spin it. Plus if the U.S. was sitting in China's shoes on these graphs, you'd be singing a very different tune.



Just because I look at the data and come to different conclusions than you might doesn't mean I'm not being honest. You are indulging in fallacious thinking here. To put it another way, the fact you brought up a purposely over-the-top joke I made about the U.S. invading China in a completely different discussion doesn't give one any confidence about your particular viewpoints here. Or were you serious with Bat about the eco-terrorism stuff?


Sure. I don't really care if China is the problem or if it turned out to be the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. And like I said, you'd be singing a different tune if those stats reflected a different hierarchy. And you didn't even believe me anyway until I showed you a few articles, so that was your previous line of attack. If you just want to play a game of move the goalposts then by all means, be my guest.

All the more reason for China to get off of coal at this point. There's no way that's the most cost effective option they have.

Nah.

You're dishonest because of your history as a troll going down the standard tree of conservative talking points, misframing of your opposition, attempts to lay a groundwork of falsehoods to drive the conversation, etc etc.

I'm not super interested in making you out to be a bad man though, I'm just here to identify some of the falsehoods for others.

It's the functional outcome of what you're calling for. Tell him, jwb.

This is a global issue so no, I wouldn't. It's probably better if you base this conversation on things I have said instead of imagined arguments you've dishonestly constructed for me in order to frame a cheap gotcha argument.

I'm well aware of the media campaign intended to manufacture western consent of war with china and never even rejected their level of emissions. I'm mainly pointing out that it's entwined with american consumption, so america effectively (as opposed to performatively as we've been seeing) going net zero or even negative on emissions would include their relationship with china.

You introduced the nation-based goalpost btw.