3 ms·

Yes but if you care about the environment it doesn't matter. Reducing the overall emissions is all that matters. And giving the biggest polluter a free pass to

• chc 9y ago
  That's the point, though — you're not actually identifying the biggest polluter. You're drawing a circle around a group of people who are not the biggest polluters by bulk or per capita and are on average way better then the country that just pulled out of the accord, and you're saying, "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." This position is so seemingly unrelated to the facts that it really feels like you're looking for evidence to justify a pre-existing stance rather than examining the evidence dispassionately and arriving at a conclusion through reason. Are you sure there's not a little bit of that going on here?
  • enknamel 9y ago
    Please read before replying. I have at no point said "These people, they're the problem, and the best way to fight the problem of this group of moderate polluters is for the US to renege on its commitments to fight climate change." or anything that even implies that. All that matters is getting the biggest reduction as possible in global emissions. We enter into these agreements as entire countries. Any agreement that gives the world's biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is useless. If China cuts their pollution in half, the world wins more than if the next 3 top polluters cut their pollution in half. Try some dispassionate analysis of your own and you will arrive at the same conclusions as me.