[Hextinium]

This is a good counter-argument with some evidence that China and India are not the toxic hell hole that sometimes pops up in media.

The thing that isn't mentioned in the article and is in the paper is that the majority >80% of the greening is due to cropland instead of the forests.

[Wohlf]

I don't know if it is a counterargument, you can fill your countryside with trees while also burning a mountain of coal.

[theandrewbailey]

It depends on how you're burning the mountain of coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

[Leary]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita (Metric Tons of CO2e Per capita):

China: 8.49 India: 2.28 United States: 19.9 Japan: 10.55

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

[Wowfunhappy]

Is your point that the US is worse?

Because, yes, the US absolutely needs to lower its carbon output immediately and drastically.

Note that there are lots of other democratic countries doing far better than the US and China.

[harshalizee]

yeah, and none of those are remotely anywhere the size of the above mentioned countries.

[Wowfunhappy]

Isn't the purpose of looking at "per capita" numbers that it allows you to compare countries of different sizes?

[mrkeen]

That's nice, but also https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...

[jacobush]

What now? I make of it a weak counter-argument at most. If you have say, more forests and toxic hell holes of cities, is that a counter-argument?

And the cropland, if its desiccated and over fertilized?