[glenstein]

We shouldn't use China as an excuse not to do anything. But we also shouldn't dismiss the fact that China is emitting more CO2 per year than the U.S. They emit nearly double: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...

The closer you get to the present day, the closer you are to the time on the historical timeline where climate change is understood to be a threat, and the more moral urgency there is to reign in emissions. It also makes more sense to consider what should be done differently about emissions last year, this year, and next year than emissions from decades ago.

[cmcaine]

Nearly twice the emissions with over four times the population. Nearly 20% of the world's population is in China. Of course they're going to emit more.

But if China were rapidly increasing its emissions per capita, that could still be a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. China seem to have held their emissions more or less still for the last few years where data is available:

consumption adjusted: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita

per capita with comparison countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

In the same period, the US, and indeed most states have achieved only quite small changes to their per capita emissions. So the US has reduced emissions a bit, but from a much higher starting point.

My gripe is that westerners often leap to talking about China and India or, worse, overpopulation.

The implicit belief seems to be that foreigners are an inconvenient drain on global resources, that they deserve less than us.

This is not true.

[glenstein]

There's a part of what you're saying that I really strongly agree with, which is that I don't think anyone in their right mind can just say "Well look at China" and use that as a basis to give up on trying to curb emissions everywhere that isn't China. Some people are making that argument in this thread, and I think that way of thinking is deeply confused, and you are right to criticize it.

What I'm not sure I follow is the relationship you seem to believe exists between per-capita emissions and responsibility to curb them. Emissions need to be curbed in proportion to their percentage of overall global emissions, not in proportion to per-capita consumption. You can vary the per-capita statistics however you like, and as long as the absolute emissions are the same, the damage to the planet is the same. Those emissions could be coming from one person or a trillion. If China had ten billion people, or fifty billion or a hundred it would still be just as incumbent upon them to curb such emissions as they are producing.

Everything else about "implicit beliefs", the "leaps" you believe people to be taking, the questions of who should or shouldn't be blamed are abstract, highly subjective, and while important, should be considered without letting them derail the conversations around needed next steps to curb emissions.