Wonder how much of this is Chinese emissions being construction driven, especially on "new" stuff developed west gets to hide into historical emissiond data. Th

Wonder how much of this is Chinese emissions being construction driven, especially on "new" stuff developed west gets to hide into historical emissiond data. This is the same in most developing countries who need to build on massive scale for the first time if they want to be uplifted from outdated building stock. More so in Asia lacking in renewable construction materials like wood. So we get stats like China using more concrete in a few years than US in last century. PRC is still at 60% urbanization rate. Even accounting for ghost city memes and 60M+ empty apartments, that's still ~300M dwelling units and infrastructure short for 80% urbanization goal in next 50 years. Unless there's significant building material improvements, China and many other countries still has a lot of emissions to "catch up". And for the purpose of development and alleviating poverty, the faster the better. >it ignores the impact of different industrial development choices made by different countries. That's another consideration that seperates PRC, who is actually competent at expediently building massively, both politically and industrially. A capability many countries lack. Majority of countries are unable adopt emission heavy policies even if they wanted to. Would be interesting to see projected US emissions if they could actually pursue uncompromised infrastructure plan. Something like total emission of plan since it'll likely be stretched over much longer period due to how slow US builds. Or what was Europe / Japan / Korea's per capita emission rebuilding the country post war which is akin the the breadth and speed of developement in China.