First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
So you simply can’t engage with this discussion in good faith and are throwing up arbitrary roadblocks so you don’t have to think about things like why climate targets differ relative to development and historical emissions.
I refuse your excuses. India is relevant. Either engage in good faith or I will ignore you.
So you bring up unrelated whataboutisms and then complain that people won’t follow them. I’m not throwing arbitrary roadblocks, you’re throwing arbitrary roads. And you want to claim you are acting in good faith? Laughable
It’s not a whataboutism to ask you to acknowledge the principals behind how GHG targets are set via an example when you’re using a simplistic bar to attack another one.
Guess your answer is no, you aren’t going to engage in good faith. Bye.
If all you care about is meeting commitments, the US doesn’t have any more commitments so I guess they are doing fine?? The commitments for China were low because that was all they could get China to agree to. These commitments don’t mean anything
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
So you simply can’t engage with this discussion in good faith and are throwing up arbitrary roadblocks so you don’t have to think about things like why climate targets differ relative to development and historical emissions.
I refuse your excuses. India is relevant. Either engage in good faith or I will ignore you.
So you bring up unrelated whataboutisms and then complain that people won’t follow them. I’m not throwing arbitrary roadblocks, you’re throwing arbitrary roads. And you want to claim you are acting in good faith? Laughable
It’s not a whataboutism to ask you to acknowledge the principals behind how GHG targets are set via an example when you’re using a simplistic bar to attack another one.
Guess your answer is no, you aren’t going to engage in good faith. Bye.
If all you care about is meeting commitments, the US doesn’t have any more commitments so I guess they are doing fine?? The commitments for China were low because that was all they could get China to agree to. These commitments don’t mean anything