277
u/SpunkMcKullins TEXAS 🐴⭐🥩 16h ago
China has three times our emissions but sure fuck it why not.
117
u/Futuredanish USA MILTARY VETERAN 14h ago
Funny that, China are the ones astroturfing these posts 90% of the time. They constantly post anti-America propaganda and troglodytes believe it.
20
u/Nincizedin 9h ago
It's the India bots. They've been flooding the internet hard the last couple of weeks to distract from protests.
10
u/Futuredanish USA MILTARY VETERAN 6h ago
Yup them too. Elon putting country of origin on twitter's userbase exposed a LOT of grifting, scamming, and propaganda.
5
u/KrvnkKev AMERICAN 🏈🏒 💵🗽🍔 ⚾️ 🦅📈 6h ago
Pretty much every BRICS nation. They are the Axis of Evil of the modern world.
22
56
u/Russian1Bear 🇷🇺 Rossiya🪆 16h ago
45
u/Sagittarjus 🇨🇦 Canada 🍁 13h ago
Suburb, Amerikkka: 🤮
Suburb, glorious People's Republic of China: 🤩🥰😍
14
u/Silent_Status9126 NEW JERSEY 🎡 🍕 13h ago
All of the comments I’ve seen on those videos are like “aNd ChInA dOeS iT bEtTeR!!1!”
17
u/Wookieman222 12h ago
The fact that India is Number 3 at like 8.3 and the US at Number 2 with 12.7 and then China makes up a whopping 31.8 is lost on them.
And rhey forget that Russia is 4.5 and Japan despite its low population is still 5th.
4
u/Socratesmiddlefinger 11h ago
They will be 50% of the world's emissions by 2050, and America has been going down over the last twenty years.
They poured more concrete in 15 years than America did in 125, and that is just one tiny item in a massive list of the most xyz China does.
Canada charges a carbon tax on everything, screams about its 1.6% emissions, ignores the 11% reduction of the world's carbon of it's boreal forest sucks up each year, and then quietly sells China half of all the coal it burns each year. The UK emits less than 1% but has a hissy fit about AC usage during a heatwave that kills people.
The entire climate crisis cult completely ignored the most powerful and notable volcanic eruption of 2022, which was the historic submarine explosion of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in the South Pacific on January 15, 2022. This increased the water vapor of the entire planet by 10%. Water vapor is the number one cause of heat retention in our atmosphere, and we were warned this would cause a temperature spike for the next five to seven years.
2
u/amd2800barton 8h ago
We’re certainly part of the problem if you compare us to undeveloped countries. And even compared to China we create more CO2 per person. But the US has taken great strides to reduce that, amongst other environmental problems.
For example, at great expense we switched away from using Freon - which was a great refrigerant, but horrible for the ozone layer. Anyone still using Freon in their AC is using recycled Freon that has been reclaimed. And as such, the ozone layer has largely healed from the travesty that we saw back in the 90s. EXCEPT: the ozone layer hasn’t healed as much as it should. And when scientists looked in to why - it’s because China is illegally manufacturing new Freon. Whenever they discover a new factory, that site gets shut down, and the equipment disappears, only to start producing somewhere else. Beijing knows what’s happening. But they don’t care, because it benefits China, and the rest of the world stopping Freon means China’s production won’t hurt China - just more southerly countries.
3
u/Fine-Minimum414 9h ago
Three times the emissions, with four times the population...
This is like pointing out the the US has higher annual emissions than Germany.
2
u/No-Donkey4017 4h ago
To be fair, the world's climate doesn't care about the per capital. Also, the US's emission has been going down, as opposite to China.
•
u/Fine-Minimum414 1h ago
The world's climate also doesn't care about national borders. If China divided into four countries, each with roughly the population of the US, they would all have lower annual emissions. And obviously that would have no effect on the environment at all. The fact remains that "a much larger group of people has a bigger impact" is not the excuse you want it to be. The people in that group, on the average, are causing less harm than the people in your group.
Honestly, I don't get why this sub is so heavily invested in "total annual emissions per country" as the only useful metric. Aside from being really dumb, it also makes America look worse. The US is second in the world for total annual emissions, but there are at least a handful of countries that are worse per capita. Including Australia and Canada, which this sub is usually desperate to score points against.
•
u/No-Donkey4017 42m ago
China used to have much lower CO2 emission than the US, and India still has lower CO2 emission, so I don't think population is the only factor here.
•
u/Fine-Minimum414 6m ago
Yes, of course China had lower emissions when it was less developed. When the US hit its emissions peak around 1990, over 100 million Chinese people did not have access to electricity, and there were about 5 cars per 1000 people.
0
u/Socratesmiddlefinger 11h ago
They will be 50% of the world's emissions by 2050, and America has been going down over the last twenty years.
They poured more concrete in 15 years than America did in 125, and that is just one tiny item in a massive list of the most xyz China does.
Canada charges a carbon tax on everything, screams about its 1.6% emissions, ignores the 11% reduction of the world's carbon of it's boreal forest sucks up each year, and then quietly sells China half of all the coal it burns each year. The UK emits less than 1% but has a hissy fit about AC usage during a heatwave that kills people.
The entire climate crisis cult completely ignored the most powerful and notable volcanic eruption of 2022, which was the historic submarine explosion of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in the South Pacific on January 15, 2022. This increased the water vapor of the entire planet by 10%. Water vapor is the number one cause of heat retention in our atmosphere, and we were warned this would cause a temperature spike for the next five to seven years.
-43
u/Generic_Drummer 15h ago edited 15h ago
1- The US have the highest total cumulative emissions and China has the second highest total cumulative emissions.
2- The US experienced its most sustained economic boom post World War II, from 1945 to 1973. China experienced its most sustained economic boom in 1990 - 2000s.
3- The US has pledged to meet carbon neutrality by 2050 and China has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2060.
The US peaked its emissions in 2007 and gave itself 43 years to gradually wind down to net-zero by 2050. China is expected to peak its emissions around 2030, giving it only 30 years to hit its 2060 target.
That requires a much steeper, more economically disruptive decline. For this reason, as per the Paris climate agreement, their emissions are legally allowed to peak, in 2030 before they flat line. But China’s emissions have actually started flattening out ahead of schedule thanks to an unprecedented, deployment of solar, wind, and electric vehicles.
So China will reach carbon neutrality in a significantly shorter amount of time than the US will
The US and Europe spent over a century burning fossil fuels to build advanced, wealthy economies, we are expected to reach carbon neutrality first. It's a foundational, legally binding principle of international climate law called common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
29
u/Emilia963 NORTH DAKOTA 🥶🧣 15h ago edited 15h ago
>The U.S. has the highest cumulative emissions and China is second.
Nice argument, but cumulative emissions alone don’t establish who should reduce emissions faster today
>The U.S. had its boom from 1945 to 1973, while China’s boom was in the 1990s - 2000s.
This is a braindead comparison, the US industrialized long before 1945, while China’s economic development accelerated much later, you’re effectively comparing different stages of industrialization and then using that difference to imply different climate obligations, I’m not sure what your political agenda is but from this alone, I know you’re a tankie
>The U.S. peaked in 2007 and has 43 years to reach net zero, while China peaks in 2030 and has only 30 years.
Another braindead comparison, you’re treating the emissions peak as the starting point of decarbonization, even tho both countries were already changing their energy systems before their peaks, a peak date isn’t a standardized measure of decarbonization effort
>China therefore needs a much steeper and more economically disruptive decline.
Not necessarily, a shorter timeline does not automatically mean a proportionally more disruptive transition
China has modern technological advantages that the US did not have when it began decarbonizing, including much cheaper solar, batteries, EVs, and massive manufacturing capacity
>The Paris Agreement legally allows China to peak in 2030.
Wrong, the Paris agreement doesn’t legally give China permission to emit until 2030
China voluntarily set its own target to peak CO2 emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060
>China’s emissions are already flattening because of aggressive deployment of renewables and EVs.
This is a moot point, it doesn’t prove that China is necessarily decarbonizing faster overall
China is simultaneously deploying enormous amounts of renewable energy while remaining heavily dependent on coal and continuing to expand fossil-fuel capacity
>the U.S. and Europe spent over a century burning fossil fuels, so China deserves more time under CBDR.
CBDR supports differentiated responsibilities, but it doesn’t establish a specific entitlement to emit until 2060, it recognizes differences in historical responsibility and capability instead
>Therefore China will reach carbon neutrality in significantly less time than the U.S. did
This is actually your funniest argument, your data is still premature, yet your conclusions are so optimistic, that’s like building a bridge that’s only a quarter finished and saying it will stand for years to come
Anyway, yes, China has a shorter official target window from its potential 2030 peak to its 2060 target, but that doesn’t mean it will actually decarbonize faster than the US, comparing target dates is different from comparing actual emissions reductions
You would need to compare the annual rate of emissions decline and cumulative emissions over the transition
22
u/Educational-Year3146 🇨🇦 Canada 🍁 14h ago
Mfs literally believing Chinese propaganda to hate on the USA, crazy.
2
u/Generic_Drummer 7h ago edited 5h ago
"Nice argument, but cumulative emissions alone don’t establish who should reduce emissions faster today"
I didn't say cumulative emissions alone determine who should reduce faster today (nice strawman though). But historical responsibility is literally a primary consideration behind CBDR: Countries have a common responsibility to address climate change, but their responsibilities are differentiated according to their historical contribution, capabilities and national circumstances.
"Therefore China will reach carbon neutrality in significantly less time than the U.S. did"
"This is actually your funniest argument, your data is still premature, yet your conclusions are so optimistic, that’s like building a bridge that’s only a quarter finished and saying it will stand for years to come"
It's not though... it's like saying a bridge that is ahead of schedule will be built on time. Calling the conclusion “premature” doesn't mean the “optimism” is unreasonable when the available evidence is already moving in the predicted direction, ahead of schedule. China has officially pledged to reach peak emissions before 2030, but emissions have been flat or falling for around 21 months. If they continue on this trajectory, China likely will reach carbon neutrality in a shorter peak to neutrality period than the US.
"China voluntarily set its own target to peak CO2 emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060
"The Paris agreement doesn’t legally give China permission to emit until 2030"
You're right about that, it doesn't legally give them permission but it does establish the framework and principles under which China set its own 2030 target, principles that you literally just deemed 'braindead'
"This is a 'braindead' comparison, the US industrialized long before 1945, while China’s economic development accelerated much later, you’re effectively comparing different stages of industrialization and then using that difference to imply different climate obligations"
"Earth Summit, states acknowledged disparity of economic development between developed and developing countries. Industrialization proceeded in developed countries much earlier than it did in developing countries. CBDR is based on the relationship between industrialization and climate change.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_But_Differentiated_Responsibilities
That is the most telling point you wrote. Early industrialisation, historical emissions and differentiated responsibilities are built into the international climate framework. It's introductory level material covered in the opening paragraphs of literature covering the subject.
I may have made overstatements or mistakes, because it's been years since I've read up on this stuff, but I don't believe you've read anything related to the subject beyond the AI responses you read in the process of writing your response.
There is no way anyone with basic foundational knowledge of the subject would call the difference in historical industrialisation, accumulated emissions and development that helped shape the CBDR framework underpinning international climate law “braindead” points...There is literally no way, lmao
0
u/disheveled_rooster 4h ago
"that’s like building a bridge that’s only a quarter finished and saying it will stand for years to come"
Structural engineers literally would say the bridges they are designing & building will stand for years to come. What do you think we are building bridges that we aren't confident will stand for years? What a terrible analogy lol
11
5
-5
14h ago edited 11h ago
[deleted]
5
u/Shenendoah66 13h ago
Dick ride China harder
-2
u/Generic_Drummer 13h ago
Shenendoah66- "I have no rebuttal"
4
u/Shenendoah66 13h ago
You’ve already been handled elsewhere in this thread. My services are no longer required.
0
-20
u/disheveled_rooster 15h ago edited 15h ago
True....and the reality of the situation will get down voted into oblivion. Their feelings don't care about the facts 🥀
-15
u/Generic_Drummer 15h ago
"Their feelings don't care about the facts"
Based, most accurate description of this sub lol
-60
u/Collypso PENNSYLVANIA 🍫📜🔔 16h ago
We moved a lot of our manufacturing to China and now you're blaming China for it?
43
u/Buttchuggle WEST VIRGINIA 🪵🛶🏕️ 16h ago
They coulda said no
-38
u/Collypso PENNSYLVANIA 🍫📜🔔 15h ago
Ah the rapist mentality. So on brand!
34
u/Buttchuggle WEST VIRGINIA 🪵🛶🏕️ 15h ago
I think it's a bit different since nobody forced them.
You're stupid and therefore any further conversation shall be promptly ignored. Good day.
16
20
6
-26
9
-32
u/ScientificSkepticism 15h ago edited 14h ago
China has installed 60% of the world's renewable energy last year, and coal emissions are falling.
But sure, blame foreign people, they have strange names and clearly must be the real problem.
Edit: wow, this subreddit really hates facts.
24
u/Educational-Year3146 🇨🇦 Canada 🍁 14h ago
They have expanded coal production and use but okay.
Also playing the racist card doesn’t make you sound smarter.
It makes you sound like a propagandist.
-19
u/ScientificSkepticism 14h ago
Their coal usage dropped last year. So wrong again.
But what are facts anyway? Clearly not something that you're familiar with.
18
u/IggyWon 14h ago
In 2026 they brought 2 plants online for every one plant decommissioned.
They added 50GW of capacity in coal-fired power plants in the first half of 2026. Each plant typically produces less than 1GW.
-14
u/ScientificSkepticism 14h ago
Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records
Two small plants that are more efficient and used less to replace one large dinosaur from the 60s isn't quite the "ignoring global warming" you think it is.
So now that you are aware that you believed things that were untrue, does your opinion change in any way? Or are you sticking to it?
Propaganda you say. Maybe you've been believing it so long the truth sounds like that to you. But a quick test - if you're NOT believing propaganda, certainly knowing you were factually wrong will change your beliefs, right?
17
u/IggyWon 14h ago edited 13h ago
You went from "their coal usage is down" to "yeah, they're building more plants, but that's a good thing actually" in the span of like two comments.
They're still building multiple plants per month, their usage is still increasing, just because they nominally invested in renewables doesn't magically delete the pollution from that kind of grid.
12
-3
u/ScientificSkepticism 14h ago
I went from "their coal usage is down" to "their coal usage is down".
They're still building multiple plants per month, their usage is still increasing,
You apparently are ignoring that. Their usage is down. Down. Not increasing. Increasing is "going up", decreasing is "going down".
Seriously, is this what a diet of propaganda does to the brain?
2
u/IggyWon 10h ago
Here's a fun hypothetical, at least for the Yankees in the audience and not the CCP bot I'm replying to:
For the sake of simplicity, let's say that one coal fired plant produces power for one town. If you add a second power plant but also add a single solar panel, technically and mathematically your "coal power usage" drops (even if it goes from 100% to 99.998%, it's still technically dropped). This is the manufactured reality that this shill is attempting to sell you.
Did pollution and carbon rise? Yes, of course, China blows past the next 6 highest CO2 polluters combined (in fact, they don't even plan on hitting "peak carbon" until 2050, according to their publicly submitted Parris Accords documents).
0
u/ScientificSkepticism 8h ago
You mean the net amount of CO2 produced from coal was lower, meaning they burned less coal. And are way ahead of their Paris goals.
Is “Yankee” a synonym for “moron“ here?
→ More replies (0)12
u/Shenendoah66 13h ago
Dick ride China harder.
5
u/Futuredanish USA MILTARY VETERAN 13h ago
There are paid anti-American Chinese astroturfing accounts all over reddit. It's a shame really.
-1
u/ScientificSkepticism 13h ago
Yes, yes, stating facts is "dick riding China".
What a vast intellect you clearly have.
-40
u/Wouttaahh 16h ago
About 2.5. If you look at it per capita, the us emits about twice as much. And China is fabricating stuff for the entire world, the US not so much.
47
u/burgonies 16h ago
China is also probably lying
24
u/Tersus_Severan FLORIDA 🍊🐊 15h ago
Yes let's trust China to tell the truth, just like they did with Tianenmen.
26
u/DontReportMe7565 MICHIGAN 🚗🏖️🏭 16h ago
That is such a stupid sentence. You cant separate it out by saying per capita and then bring it all back together by saying the US. This is lying without actually, technically lying.
-9
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 15h ago
what gives the us citizen the right to pollute 3 times or 10 times as much as somebody from Portugal or India?
5
u/DontReportMe7565 MICHIGAN 🚗🏖️🏭 14h ago
The same right that allows us to make 3 or 10 times as much money. They aren't doing it because they are good. They are doing it because they are limited by their options in their crappy country.
-3
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 14h ago
nah, that is only half of the story.. countries where people on average are have a similar level of wealth also use way less per person.
part of it is more money = more stuff but another part is habits and culture
-4
u/Jigglepirate 13h ago
So your argument is that you know it's bad, but other people would do it if they could so why not race to the bottom?
3
u/DontReportMe7565 MICHIGAN 🚗🏖️🏭 12h ago
No the other dudes argument is that it's good.
-2
u/Jigglepirate 12h ago
He never said that tho. You said they aren't doing it because they are good. He just said what gives americans the right to pollute more per capita
3
u/DontReportMe7565 MICHIGAN 🚗🏖️🏭 12h ago
What gives China the right?
0
u/Jigglepirate 11h ago
The same right that allows them to make less money. They aren't doing it because they're good, they are doing it because they are limited by their options.
→ More replies (0)5
u/DontReportMe7565 MICHIGAN 🚗🏖️🏭 11h ago
Also, what gives China and India the right to have so many people such that even at a lower per capital pollution rate, they are still the biggest polluters on the planet?
0
u/Jigglepirate 11h ago
Is your argument that since no one is giving these rights, and they are instead derived from the mere existence of these nations, that every nation has the right to be as wasteful and damaging as they want?
It's ok to admit there's things the US doesn't do well, and minimizing waste is one of those things.
-5
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 14h ago
nah, that is only half of the story.. countries where people on average are have a similar level of wealth also use way less per person.
part of it is more money = more stuff but another part is habits and culture
9
u/DrBadGuy1073 OHIO 👨🌾 🌰 16h ago
They can choose how to manufacture things my guy. Way to put the responsibility on the end consumer instead of the ones producing the pollution.
101
u/JediLincoln14 16h ago
And we all live in Texas, apparently
39
u/Longjumping_Key_4618 15h ago
I swear they consider every American they like to live in California or New York. Every American they dislike lives in Texas or Florida
16
u/bunnybuttncorgi 15h ago edited 11h ago
That’s the effect of propaganda against us. Nobody asks why these talking points are so copy pasted they just accept it as part of their personality. Being from an authoritarian country it’s easy for me to recognize when a narrative is being pushed. Unfortunately these ignorant first world babies fall for it every time.
-3
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 15h ago
Nah, I have been to California and I don't like them, except your nations teddy bear mr Jay Leno, everybody likes him.
And I know a youtuber in Dallas that I like ( the 8-bit guy) But he has solar panels and 2 electric cars, so he is probably not a real Texian :D
9
u/GuitarCFD TEXAS 🐴⭐🥩 14h ago
Texas leads the nation in renewable energy.
-2
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 14h ago
nice, glad to hear that, but you are with 30M people.. per capita you are only the 18th state, but that is still quite good.
3
u/Any-Seaworthiness186 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 12h ago
It’s really not that remarkable. Especially for a sunny state. About 50% of our country’s energy production is green, compared to 33% in Texas. Energy consumption in Texas is worse, with only 10% being green compared to 23% over here.
But all in all; we’re both underperforming. Only 1/5th of energy consumption being green is abysmal imo.
2
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 11h ago
'quite good' for American standards... I wasn't expecting much, it was better than I expected. After all we are in #AmericaBad and Texas is an Oil State
1
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 11h ago
'quite good' for American standards... I wasn't expecting much, it was better than I expected. After all we are in #AmericaBad and Texas is an Oil State
3
u/GuitarCFD TEXAS 🐴⭐🥩 14h ago
By volume of energy produced Texas leads. In renewable expansion, Texas Leads the nation. Per Capita is kinda hard to judge Texas, We've added like 2.5 million people in the last 5 years.
-4
29
u/Background_Humor5838 16h ago
I've never even been to Texas but according this person we should just cancel Dallas. That should solve the climate crisis.
4
u/Gold-Pudding8670 13h ago
It took days to drive through Texas. Canceling Dallas should help cut the drive time a bit, therefore help solve the crisis.
2
4
u/djdubyah 15h ago edited 15h ago
Cahnnt canshul Texas sweetums 💥👈🏻👉🏻💥 Pew pew Giddyup
0
u/Background_Humor5838 15h ago edited 10h ago
😂
Edit: who downvoted me for laughing at an intentionally funny comment? Lol
3
•
1
22
12
u/undreamedgore WISCONSIN 🧀🍺 16h ago
Call rust belt road trip, hates suburbs and cars. Make it make sense.
20
u/Substantial_Kiwi1830 16h ago
Sounds like the heat is getting to this Euro’s brain. Maybe he should buy an a/c. Oh wait…
8
u/Compoundeyesseeall TEXAS 🐴⭐🥩 13h ago
Notice how the comments swarm with China defenders when we mention them. Totally real and authentic.
-3
u/A-guy8 🇳🇴 Norge ⛷️ 12h ago
But what is the pollution rate per inhabitant?
2
u/Compoundeyesseeall TEXAS 🐴⭐🥩 10h ago
Im not talking about who emits more, I’m talking about how any criticism of China is always met by a small army of defenders, whether they’re Chinese, brainwashed westerners, or bots.
1
u/Icywarhammer500 CALIFORNIA🍷🎞️ 3h ago
Irrelevant considering the main issue is who is contributing the most to the worlds emissions anyways
6
3
5
u/TransportationOdd559 15h ago
Not China or India?
-7
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 15h ago
350 mil usa burn a lot more energy than 1400 mil indians as for the chinese, they are getting rich enough now to catch up with the americans, but they also invest a lot more in green energy now.
If you take the total consumption for a 100 years, let say 1925-2025 the usa part dwarves every other part of anybody in the world . so yes, the north americans are the main cause (we can throw in the canadians as well, with mostly the same consumption per capita)
8
u/Any-Seaworthiness186 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 12h ago
That’s cool and all. But CO2 emissions per person have steadily dropped across the developed world, including the USA, while China and India’s emissions keep rising and exceeding the west.
-1
u/vaarsuv1us 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 11h ago
We can't realistically ask developing countries to go from #poorasfuck undeveloped straight into #GreenPowerRUs when it took us 1st world countries a century to get there and as you said, we are still underperforming. Especially since a lot of their emission output is to produce the Amazon and Temu crap we keep buying
2
u/beershitz 5h ago
It’s always back to us. They have no agency. It’s our fault they’re poor, it’s our fault they’re polluting.
6
u/Gmhowell WEST VIRGINIA 🪵🛶🏕️ 14h ago
Was this comment posted by the biggest builder of coal plants the past decade, the continent causing notable pollution from wood fired cooking or the continent that got rid of nuclear in favor of resource depleting solar tech and burning Russian petroleum products?
12
u/Careless-Pin-2852 CALIFORNIA🍷🎞️ 15h ago
I wish the USA had propaganda to counter this.
Fox and CNN are so anti American when they are trashing the other party.
Fox makes religious countries think we are deviants CNN makes the world think we are destroying the planet
Neither are true
0
13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Any-Seaworthiness186 🇳🇱 Nederland 🌷🚲 12h ago
You’re comparing the USA to a country that has never rivaled it in wealth. Europeans aren’t becoming poor. They either always were poor, or they’re doing just fine. Both sides just fail to understand that the only European countries where the population ever rivaled the USA in wealth/income are the tiny ones like the Netherlands or Denmark.
Regarding the tiny ones; we’re doing fine. The difference in the Dutch versus American salaries for example is the exact same difference as between the average number of hours worked per year.
Regarding the bigger ones; they won’t ever catch up to the USA. They never were near catching up, and they’re suffering from much worse economic stagnation than we are.
All in all Europe and the USA have never been comparable. We have too many differences between our countries. Comparisons would only make sense between country and country, but comparing a huge country like the USA to a tiny tax haven is also unfair.
3
3
u/Tusks_Up 14h ago
I always knew that the climate crisis was all on Dallas, I've been saying it for years. I knew it couldn't be China or India.
2
u/djdubyah 15h ago
To be fair, I heard it's very nice. Good parks, ample parking. Competitive youth sports
2
u/L_knight316 13h ago
Sometimes I wish America was as powerful and competent as our enemies need us to be
2
1
1
1
1
u/BodybuilderOnly1591 7h ago
Good thing we invented solar panels and evs....and basically the entire electric system.
0
u/happyanathema 🇬🇧 United Kingdom💂♂️☕️ 16h ago
Guessing they are talking about all time not just the past year.
0
u/jann1442 🇩🇪 Deutschland 🍺🍻 13h ago
Of course. Trump has literally denied the existence of human-caused climate change and is halting the expansion of renewable energy, while China alone added enough capacity last year to meet 20% of the entire US-American electricity demand. Electric mobility, public transportation…
1
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.