I believe the “consumption-based CO2” graph used on the article, which is the main pillar, falls short on three accounts: * It measures the CO2 it takes to con

I believe the “consumption-based CO2” graph used on the article, which is the main pillar, falls short on three accounts: * It measures the CO2 it takes to constuct, but leaves (seems to leave out) the CO2 cost of transportation. When a TV has to travel around the world that cost isn’t trivial. * The article focuses on CO2 exclusively. If a TV made in China produces about the same CO2 as one done on shore, all is good, even if the former involves (for example) dumping acid into a river, which would be illegal in the US. Even if we want to keep the discussion exclusively about climate change, other emissions must be taken into account. Methane for example is 50 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. * The whole part about it being “only” about 18% in the case of Europe (that’s a lot!) and that “it has not changed much in the last 30 years” (that makes it worse!)