5 ms·

You are the one trying to shift the narrative. I said nothing about per capita or not. I said emission intensity of production. That is a better metric IMO beca

You are the one trying to shift the narrative. I said nothing about per capita or not. I said emission intensity of production. That is a better metric IMO because it doesn't incentivize environmentally destructive population increase or excuse total emissions. It's basically the carbon efficiency of creating value. It's not perfect, every situation is a bit different, but China is such a dirty outlier compared with other major economies and the world that you can't handwave it away - https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/co2-emissions-intensity-of-gdp-1990-2021 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/co2-emissions... Producing something in China versus most other places means emitting more carbon.

xtian 3y ago
“environmentally destructive population increase” - Wow, that’s one I didn’t expect to hear openly so soon.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  So you have no real argument.
  - xtian 3y ago
    Has it occurred to you that most other places make barely any manufactured goods at all compared to China? Particularly basic materials like steel. How do you factor that into your calculations? The US will look pretty good on your chosen metric because our primary exports are soybeans, credit, and IP. But it doesn’t matter regardless because any attempt to impose authoritarian climate measures on China will send the West into economic crisis, one way or another.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > Has it occurred to you that most other places make barely any manufactured goods at all compared to China? Particularly basic materials like steel. How do you factor that into your calculations? China looks terrible compared to almost all other significant economies. When fundamentals like electricity production are much dirtier, you don't need to look much further downstream. > But it doesn’t matter regardless What "doesn't matter"? > because any attempt to impose authoritarian climate measures on China will send the West into economic crisis, one way or another. International terms of trade can not be "authoritarian", by definition. That's an ironic misunderstanding: if you want authoritarian look no further than the communist dictatorship ruling the country.

xtian 3y ago

“environmentally destructive population increase” - Wow, that’s one I didn’t expect to hear openly so soon.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwawaylinux 3y ago
So you have no real argument.
- xtian 3y ago
  Has it occurred to you that most other places make barely any manufactured goods at all compared to China? Particularly basic materials like steel. How do you factor that into your calculations? The US will look pretty good on your chosen metric because our primary exports are soybeans, credit, and IP. But it doesn’t matter regardless because any attempt to impose authoritarian climate measures on China will send the West into economic crisis, one way or another.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > Has it occurred to you that most other places make barely any manufactured goods at all compared to China? Particularly basic materials like steel. How do you factor that into your calculations? China looks terrible compared to almost all other significant economies. When fundamentals like electricity production are much dirtier, you don't need to look much further downstream. > But it doesn’t matter regardless What "doesn't matter"? > because any attempt to impose authoritarian climate measures on China will send the West into economic crisis, one way or another. International terms of trade can not be "authoritarian", by definition. That's an ironic misunderstanding: if you want authoritarian look no further than the communist dictatorship ruling the country.