[alephnerd]

> Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point

China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0]

If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation, it's all for naught.

None of the attendees are in the position to pressure the big 3 polluters. And it doesn't matter - the larger countries know they can eat the cost of climate change. It's the poorer or smaller countries that face the brunt of the impact.

And it's only going to get worse. India turned down hosting COP33 in 2028 [1] because India is deciding to to double down on coal [2] as the Iran Crisis has shown China's bet on Coal Gasification that began during the Iraq War [3] was correct.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/india-withdraws-b...

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-05/india-mul...

[3] - https://usea.org/sites/default/files/022011_Coal-to-oil,%20g...

[applfanboysbgon]

It is beyond shameful how Westerners misallocate the blame for pollution, using misleading statistics. India has ~17% of the world's population. That it only produces 7% of global emissions means it is contributing far, far, far less than whatever country you possibly come from in relative terms, so at that point you are besmirching it solely for the crime of having a larger population than your country.

China, while having a disproportionate share of the pollution relative to its population, only has that pollution because the West offshored almost the entirety of its manufacturing capacity to China. Is China really at fault for pollution caused creating goods for the West? If China shuts down all export manufacturing overnight, and the West is forced to resume manufacturing for itself, resulting in ~the same global emissions, is that what's necessary to stop blaming China even though there's no shift in demand for manufactured goods or total pollution? Moreover, China is investing more seriously into non-fossil-fuel energy than any country in the West, by far. If you let the West resume its own manufacturing, you would actually end up with higher total emissions, because the West does not take this subject seriously at all.

[pretzellogician]

> "solely for the crime of having a larger population than your country"

I think there's an interesting question here. Perhaps having a larger population is indeed a bad thing, and should be considered as such?

(Yes, India's fertility rate, like many other countries, is dropping quickly)

[alephnerd]

Climate change doesn't divvy impact based on per capita usage.

And large countries and blocs like the US, China, EU, India, etc would survive in a world with significant climate crises. So the incentive to change doesn't exist.

And this is why the world will burn.

[applfanboysbgon]

The Chinese government invested ~$1 trillion in clean energy in 2025, while the Chinese economy had a further ~$2 trillion in growth surrounding EVs, batteries, and solar. You talk about "no incentive to change", but things are actively changing. What more would you like China to do, in concrete terms? Stop manufacturing for the West, even though that will, as aforementioned, likely result in a net increase in emissions when Western countries resume their substantially worse per-capita manufacturing for themselves? Or perhaps you would like China to cull its population by half for you? I'm interested in hearing your proposal.

[alephnerd]

> I'm interested in hearing your proposal

I have no proposal because to a certain extent you are correct.

That said, investing trillions in GreenTech does nothing when China is still emitting 13 gigatons of CO2, and it takes the next 7 countries combined to reach that number. Additionally, India will likely end up emitting a similar amount as China within a decade as well.

Only the leadership of the US, China, and India can decide on a roadmap on how to reduce CO2 usage globally, and everything else is just rhetoric.

[leonidasrup]

Personaly I would like to see China invest less in renewables and more in nuclear power. If France could replace its coal power plants with nuclear power plants in 1970s, 1980s then China should be capable to do it.

China endured famines for centuries, introduction of nitrogen fertilizers helped to solve this problem.

"The meeting of Mao Zedong and Nixon in 1972 changed drastically the fundamental relation between China and USA. In 1973 China contracted importation of 13 large-scale ammonia plants with 330,000 t/y capacity and urea plants with 500-600,000 t/y capacity with the companies of USA, Japan and Europe."

https://kagakushi.org/iwhc2015/papers/21.MineTakeshi.pdf

[peterashford]

Climate change is the result of aggregate human actions. What we contribute per human is exactly the metric to use.

[card_zero]

Or is it the result of government policies? Then we should look to the governments in control of the biggest portions.

[alphabeta3r56]

Out of these two, only EU and US are showing reluctance to change quickly. Both China and India depend heavily on imported fossil fuels and for them solar is as much of a sovereignty issues as it is pollution, and then climate.

[ZeroGravitas]

The EU also depends heavily on imported fossil fuels. They just have more politicians that have been bought off.

[legacynl]

> China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0]

Perhaps this is for the best? I assume if they did intend they would be mostly saying 'no' to everything?

Now things might get actually accepted by willing participants, which might allow it to snowball and gain traction, which might convince one of those 3 to join at a later date.

[alephnerd]

They can't though. None of the participants hold cards that can convince the US, China, or India otherwise, as those 3 also represent around 42% of the global economy [0].

Additionally, other major polluters like ASEAN (Indonesia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Malaysia), Russia, the GCC (Saudi Arabia, UAE), and Turkiye turned down the invitation.

[0] - https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPSH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...

[triceratops]

> If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation

Even if India and China went 0 carbon today the world will continue heating due to historic emissions. The US and Europe account for 54% of cumulative CO2 emissions. [1]

Not to mention there would be no conversation without China's manufacturing prowess that has made solar panels and batteries so cheap.

> the larger countries know they can eat the cost of climate change

I'm curious how you think India will "eat the cost" of losing most of its freshwater.[2] And if think you it's feasible to do so (which again, I don't see how), then it's even more important that they develop their economy to "eat the cost" right? You can't fault them for doing everything they can to grow their economy. It's not like anyone else is going 0 carbon either, and they're the most vulnerable large country.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...

2. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/himalayas-melting-c...