You're talking past sudosysgen. sudosysgen is arguing the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power a

You're talking past sudosysgen. sudosysgen is arguing the methodology for ascribing emissions to trade is flawed and only takes into account first order power and cement production instead of both additional emission sources as well as second order consequences (e.g. what infrastructure exists because of the need for trade). I personally could buy the 14% deficit number for China based on gut feel alone but I also think the trend line looks weird and indicates maybe something off with the accounting. For example I would expect the deficit now to much smaller than it was 20 years ago whereas it in fact appears to be considerably larger. Indeed if the graph is to be believed it appears this deficit has been growing this decade compared to past decades (although perhaps the last few years may indicate a reversal?) which is not what I would expect.