[dnautics]

It's arguably not particularly inconvenient for the us political class? the us has been on a tear reducing per capita ghg emissions (also trade corrected ghg emissions). this has been going on for five decades now (consistently 2.5) independent of whether administrations or congress have been red or blue

iiuc us per capita emissions are not far from 1910s levels

[wildzzz]

I don't trust the trade corrected numbers, China uses a ton of coal still and is ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US. The number for the US has mostly gone down due to switching to natural gas from coal.

[dnautics]

> ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US.

no, factories are closing and workers are protesting due to factory shutdowns in china. if you go to target, most things are made in bangladesh, pakistan India, maylaysia, thailand, vietnam where before they'd all be from china. also us consumption generally is decreasing, and anyways, transportation and direct energy was always the biggest contributor.

[snaking0776]

I’m more referencing the narrative that climate change is being used as a political point to enforce a global political state which stifles innovation (for example read the Project 2025 document around page 417 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...). They do make some fair points in there but the primary change to the EPA that is being proposed is focusing on decentralizing the response to climate change to the states. In a vacuum where climate change is a matter of air quality this isn’t a crazy idea but the reality is that this is a global issue which is inconvenient if you want to prioritize growth/innovation over all else and the general idea behind climate conservationism is a powerful political force which the whole world is trying to shape right now for their benefit. There is right wing conservation which largely focuses on local, narrow issues (such as whale habitats being used as a reason to cancel offshore wind). There is also left wing conservation which pushes the more global climate change view and more large scale changes such as carbon taxes, increased stimulus for renewable energy, and often more regulation. Multiple things are true here though: 1. A lot of our regulation is pointless and serves to just increase cost and lock-in existing players as dominant forces in markets. This definitely stifles innovation so there is pushback against climate related changes for fear this will continue or worsen. 2. Climate change is a powerful force in modern politics which serves as a binding force for many disparate factions and is creating many grassroots movements. The impact of these on innovation isn’t clear (nor is it the point) but increased climate awareness is certainly increasing pushback against greenhouse gas emission intensive industries such as datacenters (in their current forms until renewable capacity can catch up) 3. Climate change is very real and is already increasing the cost of doing business and being less aware of it isn’t going to help. This will also stifle innovation as costs mount in the coming years.

I see this move as an attempt to stifle 2 by hiding 3. It seems like a bet that if we don’t focus on the global issues (like a collapsing current) then much of the political power behind climate change disappears since we are frankly quite lucky in the US to have a beautiful, and largely clean environment/air. Grassroots movements and politically powerful messages are likely an annoyance for those who want to keep doing business as usual since it benefits them to do so. Not trying to make a strong claim that our current response to climate change or what anyone in particular is doing is right or wrong but it seems clear that climate change is a powerful message that pushes for much grander scale changes than most people are comfortable with especially those with strong private interests in ignoring it.