[DrScientist]

It's easy to have the highest growth if you start from nowhere - when somebody quotes growth you should instantly be on guard for BS. For example the US could have gone from 1000 to 1020, and China from 200 to 220 - focusing on the larger percentage increase from China is rather missing the point.

You are also forgetting total carbon emissions over the lifetime of a country - developed countries are responsible for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere - and while developing countries might be catching up in day to day emissions they are nowhere in catching up in total emissions.

[caminante]

Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions.

This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing.

And cumulative emissions? Another ironic critique, given China is by far the largest and fastest growing emitter. Assuming you agree with the 1.5C target increase, we have a limited budget. Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

[DrScientist]

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.

[caminante]

> 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.

[DrScientist]

Eh?

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

[caminante]

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".

[DrScientist]

It's you that's trying to move the goalposts - the original post was about per capita emissions - and it's indisputable that the US puts out more using that metric.

And in terms of prison labour ( another attempt at mis-direction by you ) - slave labour is effectively still legal in the US - the US has the largest prison population in the world ( by far ) and compulsory work from prisoners is legal.

So the US just moved from explicit slave labour, to imprisoning people and forcing them to work...... and yes - if you are from a particular racial minority you are much more likely to be subjected to this....