>If only China and US could get their shit together....
If people in the US are still consuming multiples more than people in other societies, then a decrease of 36% means the US still does not have their shit together. Presumably, zahlman's response of pointing out the 36% decrease was a refutation of fHr's claim for China and US to get their shit together.
Although, also funny is that the US's 36% decline is partly (significantly?) due to exporting CO2 emissions from manufacturing to China, but that applies to the rest of the world too.
> decline is partly (significantly?) due to exporting CO2 emissions from manufacturing to China
They didn't have to agree to it, you know. But you can look at consumption-based carbon accounting and still get a picture that the US is, indeed, getting its shit together.
In response to fHr's comment of
>If only China and US could get their shit together....
If people in the US are still consuming multiples more than people in other societies, then a decrease of 36% means the US still does not have their shit together. Presumably, zahlman's response of pointing out the 36% decrease was a refutation of fHr's claim for China and US to get their shit together.
Although, also funny is that the US's 36% decline is partly (significantly?) due to exporting CO2 emissions from manufacturing to China, but that applies to the rest of the world too.
If we had to choose between the US decreasing by 36%, and decreasing by 0%, I know which one I would choose if I cared about the climate (which I do).
You care about the climate and you think just cutting emissions in one part of the world to increase them in another is a good thing?
1 reply →
> decline is partly (significantly?) due to exporting CO2 emissions from manufacturing to China
They didn't have to agree to it, you know. But you can look at consumption-based carbon accounting and still get a picture that the US is, indeed, getting its shit together.