undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDrScientist1y ago0 comments

It's about per capita basis - it's still roughly half the US emissions per capita and while it may be growing it still has a long way to catch up.

The population of China is about 4x the US.

> Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill - while China is leading on renewable generation.

Hardly anybody is doing enough - but blaming others and doubling down on consumption it's a sustainable strategy either.

0 comments

caminante1y ago

> while China is leading on renewable generation.

...and they're also #1 by far on GHG emissions, which doesn't offset even proportionally.

It's like saying Bob might be a murderer, but...he's really works hard to teach each Sunday during Bible study. You're just moving the goalpost (and you never acknowledged how your initial critique about number sense was off base).

> Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill

Whataboutism fallacy on top of recency bias, i.e., the US has been the largest producer of natgas since 2009 and petro since 2013.

DrScientistOP1y ago

Eh?

Do people in China emit less carbon per person than the US or not?

caminante1y ago

Who is disputing that fact? LOL!

Meanwhile, you can't defend how that or the cumulative argument (which you abandoned) is relevant. I've acknowledged and pointed out the flaws in these points.

Edit: I'll also note that your undefined sense of "fairness" over accountability doesn't take into account how China is using slave labor and Uygurs to build PVs.

Just take the "L".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

caminante1y ago

> while China is leading on renewable generation.

...and they're also #1 by far on GHG emissions, which doesn't offset even proportionally.

> Sure. But the current US position is to leave the Paris accords and drill baby drill

Whataboutism fallacy on top of recency bias, i.e., the US has been the largest producer of natgas since 2009 and petro since 2013.

DrScientistOP1y ago

Eh?

Do people in China emit less carbon per person than the US or not?

caminante1y ago

Who is disputing that fact? LOL!

Meanwhile, you can't defend how that or the cumulative argument (which you abandoned) is relevant. I've acknowledged and pointed out the flaws in these points.

Edit: I'll also note that your undefined sense of "fairness" over accountability doesn't take into account how China is using slave labor and Uygurs to build PVs.

Just take the "L".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse