What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage. I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions.

Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

▲ throw0101d 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

If you're talking about coal miners, David Frum joked / observed that there are more yoga instructors in the US than coal miners:

* https://www.sfgate.com/columnists/article/Yoga-teachers-vs-c...

	▲	canyp 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That headline really deserves a literary prize. Yoga instructors, assemble!
	▲	array_key_first 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Also coal mining is a shitty ass job. Those people would be much better served working in green energy.
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	MengerSponge 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And that was in 2017! The population of working coal miners shrank by 20% in the last decade, from 50k to 40k https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU1021210001#0

▲ JohnTHaller 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We've been in the realm of intentionally doing damage for a while now. But we got these cool red hats.

▲

Herring 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

NewJazz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Trouble is... You can do it to a few minorities and get away with it. When you act like an asshole to the entire world, well suddenly assholes as big as you are in the minority... Oops.

▲

watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

He is going to do to America the same thing he had done to his companies - destroy it. Unfortunately, he fails upwards, so he will take over the whole world and then destroy it all.

	▲	DFHippie 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		He will die pretty soon. He's just the first stage of the rocket. He thinks he's a pharaoh letting a thousand pyramids bloom, but he's expendable. He'll be gone. People will chisel his name off the monuments he's vandalized. But the people who granted him power like what he's doing. He's somebody's monkey. The hollowing out of the US and the world order that produced western prosperity and security will continue. The people who call the tune to which he dances will call tunes for the next monkey.

▲ andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Intentionally doing damage started with DOGE. So, roughly day 1.

▲

bakies 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

you forgot this is part 2

▲

andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Ok, right. Intentionally doing damage started at least as early as Jan 6 2021.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

nutjob2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Those "savings" have not withstood careful analysis. Essentially they're nonsense and with the damage they have done the final bill will be much higher than any savings.

▲

cosmicgadget 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you honestly think federal employees are more corrupt than this administration?

▲

nailer a day ago | parent [-]

Yes.

▲

cosmicgadget a day ago | parent [-]

Which one had a greater 2025 net worth increase than the president? Which one pardoned people who donated to his campaign or ballroom? Which one is subject to legal reprisal for corruption?

	▲	nailer 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Business tends to vote for pro business parties. I have no idea re: the whitehouse ballroom. There’s been little legal reprisal for federal employee corruption.

▲

amanaplanacanal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just because they call it waste, doesn't make it so. You could cut anything and then justify it by calling it waste.

It's all bullshit.

▲

seg_lol 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

14 million dead kids.

▲

array_key_first 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just uh... just waiting for those saving to hit.

Yup, ahh... any day now.

▲

watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The group that was found to be massively lying every time they released stats in easy to catch ways and wasted more money then they saved?

▲ pheggs 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

there are at least two reasons trump is pushing for oil:

1) the US has lots of oil reserves, which would lose lots of value if everybody was using renewables 2) oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar, allowing the US to have lots of debt relatively cheaply

That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling it in different currencies.

Now whether that whole genius strategy to gain wealth through geopolitics is worth an extinction event is a different story.

▲

Jtsummers 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling them not in USD.

What's interesting is that the strategy you suggest (tell Europe to stop using renewables, attack nations that compete with US oil sales) only motivates other nations to move away from oil. It's a terrible strategy if the intent is to sell more US oil. Renewables are far more sustainable in many regards, and bolster national energy security while remaining on fossil fuels leaves them weak wrt energy security.

▲

jopsen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Also the US is increasingly proving itself as an unreliable partner. Do you want that for your energy supply?

This is just more of that, contracts in the US are suddenly subject to political winds.

In the end, this will probably be unblocked by the legal system, and eventually the US tax payers will pay for damages. But it'll be a long time.

▲

pheggs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

it could very well be that it backfires. I guess time will tell. A lot of his actions seem to be trimmed into this direction, and it's not a new one. He left the paris climate agreement quite a while back as far as I remember. blocking offshore wind construction just fits this agenda, as supporting companies to manufacture these windmills would just make everything cheaper (more demand, rising production capacity etc.) and demonstrate actual use of it.

At least that's how I see this.

▲

Jtsummers 2 days ago | parent [-]

> it could very well be that it backfires.

It's kind of hard to see the strategy you outlined as doing anything other than backfiring. Oil and other fossil fuels are consumables. Once burned, they're gone. For strategic reasons, most nations with any sense and the economic ability to do so are turning away from fossil fuels precisely due to this fact. European nations are not exceptional here, the US is actually the outlier.

Your suggested strategy is that the US wants European nations to buy more US oil, and in order to motivate them the US is demonstrating how bad oil dependence is. See Cuba (they depend on Venezuelan oil there).

How could a demonstration of the flaws of oil dependency possibly motivate the sale of US oil rather than hasten the move towards solar, wind, and other power sources?

This is why I said it's a terrible strategy. Only the non-thinking would go for it.

	▲	pheggs 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You could be right. I try to abstain from making any predictions, because I see the world is such a complicated mess where even stupid decisions could get a positive outcome due to unforeseeable events. (a new pandemic? a war breaks out? someone decided to retaliate? the suez canal gets occupied? a volcano erupts?) That being said, he is obviously aware that Europe is planning on greener energy. This administration also tries to break down the EU by pulling out countries like Italy and Poland. They are clearly promoting right wing parties all over Europe which align more with his agenda and are more EU sceptic. They might try to use social media for propaganda. The goal is divide and conquer. Europe has to pay attention to this and be aware of the risk. The strategy may seem stupid, but it would be even more stupid to ignore it and not make sure it fails. That's my personal opinion on this subject.

▲

aqme28 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a third important reason--

For some reason, oil has masculine aesthetics but wind power doesn't. I don't think this is a calculated play

▲

osn9363739 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

How many people actual think like this or are influenced by it? (I'm going to be disappointed aren't I)

▲

llbbdd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nobody at all, but isn't it scary to imagine? In fact we could imagine and invent all kinds of scary things if we think too much. Ahh!

▲

ssl-3 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I know plenty of people personally who can rant about energy prices being high while somehow finding room in the same breath to demonize wind and solar energy and even namedrop whichever foul devil bogeyman it is this week that is said to be the cause of this disjointed trauma that they find so overwhelming.

In the next breath, they pick something else from the deck to be upset about: These days, that's usually brown people, emails, laptops, the American cities that people in frog costumes burn to the ground every night, brown people, guns, laptops, and Hillary.

Sometimes, they then take a break to hear themselves talk about baseball, praise the president for getting so much done that he doesn't even have time to sleep, or to complain about the plot from the episode of The Dukes of Hazard -- from 1983 -- that they watched for the 14th time last night on Pluto.

After the break, it's time for them to complain about how they can't afford visit a doctor or buy eyeglasses, but they sure as hell don't want them any of those librawls to take any of their hard-earned money so everyone can go to the doctor.

Then things shift back to being weirder again: Schools turning boys into girls, kids using litter boxes in the classroom, men wearing dresses, God's Perfect Plan, guns, brown people, groceries, brown people, and blue hair dye.

This tiresome process repeats until I manage to escape, or I tell them very pointedly to shut the fuck up (hints don't work).

None of the people I know who act this way seem to be particularly bright, but I know them anyway.

And they vote. (Yes, I've checked.)

▲

hunterpayne 2 days ago | parent [-]

"while somehow finding room in the same breath to demonize wind and solar energy "

Did you ever consider that all the money spent on expensive renewables is money not spent on cheaper forms of power? Did you ever consider that they are correct and that spending on renewables drives up power costs? Because that's what the data says is happening. Now, I am aware that the amount of FUD on this topic is very different to get through. But if you learn about the differences between capacity and utilization costs and the other accounting games that are played with energy costs, you will learn how to see through the FUD. But I'm sure it is more psychologically comforting to just look down on them which is what you are actually doing.

▲

ssl-3 2 days ago | parent [-]

I consider that I'm intertwined in the evolution of a very different friend's very local efforts, with their own hybrid battery-backed grid-tied offline-capable solar power system.

That rig is pretty sweet.

It pays for itself, and in present form and with their present use (wherein: they're not trying to live particularly-efficiently) it is almost entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down for an indefinite period.

But, sure: We can talk about games, instead, if what you want to chat about is just games.

What games might you have in mind?

▲

hunterpayne 2 days ago | parent [-]

"entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down for an indefinite period."

You do know that batteries have a capacity right? And powerplants have something called a capacity factor. That means for a given amount of capacity, you generate on average a certain amount of power. For nuclear that factor is .9. For renewables its .1. So 1 watt of nuclear provides the same power as 9 watts of renewables. That's why when you say that renewables have 1/3 the capacity cost, it really means its 3x more expensive than nuclear. That means higher bills for people, which is what we mean when we say utilization cost. That's the real cost that people pay and actually counts. And all this is before we talk about siting issues with renewables. Fun fact, most PV is sites (located) somewhere with an albino factor of less than .25. But since you connected a battery terminal to a PV panel, you must know what that means. Seriously, you are just spreading misinformation that transfers cost from the rich to the poor, such a hero you are.

	▲	ssl-3 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say that renewables have 1/3 of anything. And I'm a big fan of nuclear power. I, for one, am completely in favor of having as many nuclear power plants in my back yard as possible. You seem to be having an argument with someone who is not present -- as if you have some unseen enemy. This delusion has been noted. There is nothing here for us to discuss. Good day.

▲

array_key_first 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Most grown men are influenced by this. The patriachy is strongggg.

Just like you can manipulate women en-masse by appealing to patriarchal attitudes around femininity and beauty, maybe by talking about weight or hair, you can influence men by appealing to patriachal attitudes around masculinity.

I mean, you can convince the average American man to drop an extra 20K on a truck he doesn't need and a multiply his gas cost by 2x just by convincing him it's manly. You can discourage men from drinking cosmopolitans and instead have them drink the equivalent of cat piss by telling him it's unmanly.

▲

senectus1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The Aplha Male Energy didnt do so well over the weekend. One got its jaw broken in two places... the other just got pounded into submission.

▲

unmole 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar

This stupid meme needs to die.

▲

tagawa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe a third reason:

“Last week, Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social that is majority-owned by the president, said it was getting into the energy business, announcing a merger with a fusion firm TAE Technologies.”

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd74lyr094vo

	▲	iszomer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Coincidentally, TAE Technologies had a product placement baked into the 2021 film named Finch with Tom Hanks, distributed by Apple Original Films.

▲ huntertwo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The intention is to make specific individuals a lot of money. It has been since day 1.

▲

dylan604 2 days ago | parent [-]

Do you mean the first day 1 or the second day 1?

	▲	tclancy 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes.
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲ iwontberude 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reminiscent of how most water which used to melt into the Great Salt Lake is now being used to farm Alfalfa, which only makes up 1% of their GDP and far fewer jobs than other industries. Of course if this continues for another generation, toxic arsenic dust will pollute and force the failure of Salt Lake City and surrounding regions. Luckily this will cause the agricultural industry to fail (after killing many people) and nature will heal itself.

▲ ugh123 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

No, not for jobs. Profits, stock bumps, and bonuses for the execs at oil companies and friends of the admin.

▲ dboreham 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage

That occurred a long time ago with the destruction of USAID and arbitrary firing of large numbers of federal workers.

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

But USAID needed to be destroyed. 'AID' never stood for aid, it was an organization for international development and spent vast amounts of money on cultural programs for countries that didn't want them.

▲

Tostino 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There will be an estimated 14 million extra deaths directly attributed to this policy choice: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

91 million lives were saved over the last two decades. The vast majority of that wasn't "international development" fluff; it was basic survival. We’re talking about stopping tuberculosis, malaria, and starvation.

Framing this as getting rid of unwanted "cultural programs" is a convenient way to ignore the fact that we pulled the plug on the life support system for 30 million children.

	▲	nailer a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Why does medical aid require gay and lesbian cultural programming?
	▲	stinkbeetle 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes I'm sure that the regime and its cronies who have spent the past 50+ years fabricating evidence for illegal wars to enrich themselves and their friends in the military and energy industries, trafficking arms and sponsoring regime change, destabilizing and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying Syria and Libya, droning Africa and Pakistan, arming and funding terrorist "JV teams" like ISIS, all uniquely care so deeply about the welfare of "the poor brown people" that they just desperately wanted to give the very shirts from their backs to this noble cause, if only the horrible government had not just forbidden it. Sure, that is the most likely explanation for all this. Come on now. These programs are rife with corruption and ulterior motives. People have moved on from "think of the starving children" being able to shut down any questioning of it. And really that's just silly when you think about it. If that's supposed to be an argument then we might ask why did previous governments practically murder 100 million people by not spending even more money on all these wonderful programs? Why are the European countries that have funded this paper you linked to murdering these orphans right now by not stepping in to replace the lost funding? It's just not really the way to have a reasoned discussion about it. Interesting introduction to the paper too: > Evidence before this study > Despite the US Agency for International Development (USAID) being the world's leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, there is scarce evidence in the literature assessing its impact on global health. Few evaluations have attempted to estimate the effects of USAID funding on maternal and child mortality in selected low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and some reports have offered only approximate estimates for specific diseases. Strange that the American public was being made to fund these vast expenditures for so many decades, on apparently scarce scientific evidence for its effectiveness. You don't think anybody could possibly have any negative feelings about how the ruling class has been spending their money?

▲

triceratops 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> vast amounts of money on cultural programs for countries that didn't want them.

I don't understand. How do you give someone money if they don't want it?

▲

iszomer 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

More like "if we can't be partners we'll find your enemies and fund them instead." or, "we'll partner with your next of kin who may be more sympathetic [or suggestive] to our concerns."

	▲	triceratops a day ago \| parent [-]
		And it's a problem if your enemies' cultural programs get funded?

▲

nailer a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Because they have other things you do want. I’m sure you actually do understand that.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent [-]

I don't. Walk me through it. Give me an example.

	▲	nailer 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No.

▲

cosmicgadget 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What other things should we destroy because you can vaguely describe something you consider wasteful?

▲

platinumrad 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"What is soft power?"

▲ Moldoteck 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

china runs with everything. They are still expanding coal units for firming and they'll build a ton of new gas units too. But to ban deployment of wind turbines without any explanation is ... expected from current administration...

▲

hopelite 2 days ago | parent [-]

Being blind with bias is also expected. I don't like what is going on either, but please consider that if it was only about "damaging" as others have implied, it would not just be off shore wind turbines. I can assure you there are other reasons.

	▲	jdlshore 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Okay, what are they?
	▲	sixothree 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We knew going into this administration that revenge would be part of every policy.

▲ vkou 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

He's been doing that since January.

▲ simonsarris 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hope you realize that China's coal and oil use for electricity is at an all-time high and increasing. They have installed more coal capacity since 2020 than the US has total. US coal usage peaked circa 2000 and has decreased for the last 2 decades.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

▲

triceratops 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> They have installed more coal capacity since 2020 than the US has total

80% or more of new electricity generation in China is renewable. They build coal capacity but they don't use more of it.

This year their absolute carbon emissions decreased.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

▲

simonsarris 2 days ago | parent [-]

That article is about emissions, not admixture. If you look at the source of that article, which they link to: https://carbonmonitor.org/variation

First off we can now look at the full year instead of 6 months of data, its no longer US +4.2% and China -2.7%, its US +2.0% and China -2.3%

China's 2025 YoY emissions decline is almost all due to a decline in industry, not power (1.8% of their 2.3% decline, in other words, most of it). It's understandable to have a lower year if you have an economic slowdown. Russia also had a decline, not for green reasons.

▲

triceratops 2 days ago | parent [-]

Their economy grew 3% this year and they cut emissions. https://rhg.com/research/chinas-economy-rightsizing-2025-loo...

"economic slowdown" is an exaggeration.

▲

simonsarris 2 days ago | parent [-]

A 3% GDP growth this year is a slowdown from 2024. Did you read this paper? I encourage you to at least read the abstract. It discusses whether "China's 2025 economic growth story turns on whether investment merely declined in the second half of the year or collapsed."

▲

ProjectArcturis 2 days ago | parent [-]

You seem to be confusing first and second derivatives.

▲

simonsarris 2 days ago | parent [-]

China had an emissions decline in 2025 that is substantially attributable to a decline in industry, per their first source. The decline in industry is plausible so long as GDP growth in 2025 is lower than GDP growth in 2024, and is additionally supported by the newly introduced source that the commentor did not read. Yes, it is possible to have an economic slowdown and a positive GDP print.

In general it's weird to say '"economic slowdown" is an exaggeration' and then link to something that talks about the economic slowdown.

	▲	triceratops a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know what "decline in industry" means here tbh. Emissions from industry went down, but GDP still went up. Does that mean there's "less industry" or "more industry"? How do you measure "industry"? Maybe their industry just became more efficient. Total emissions also went down. Yeah GDP went up less than last year but that hardly matters when we're talking about an emissions reduction. Not "less emissions growth than last year", an absolute decrease.

▲

stephen_g 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

New coal data is out just a few days ago [1], it's plateaued globally and expected to start to decline.

China's consumption this year was about the same as last, and looking to drop a bit, so likely old coal plants were being retired at about the same rate as newer ones were built, and that will start to go the other way (more retired than built).

1. https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-has-reached-a-pl...

▲

timeon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Article is about US blocking energy from wind. You are (correctly) saying that China is increasing energy from coal and oil.

What is your point? Can you elaborate how this is relevant?

▲ wnevets 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

That began almost the moment this administration came into power.

▲ nerevarthelame 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

"The Trump administration’s decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths from infectious diseases and malnutrition, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Atul Gawande ... The dismantling of USAID, according to models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols, “has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children,” Gawande wrote. He noted that the toll will continue to grow and may go unseen because it can take months or years for people to die from lack of treatments or vaccine-preventable illnesses—and because deaths are scattered." [https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...]

▲ ekjhgkejhgk 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What? They've been intentionally doing damage for a long time. Pardoning criminals is one that comes to mind.

▲

dfxm12 2 days ago | parent [-]

Pardoning criminals is one that comes to mind.

Seriously, the pardons alone make this the most pro-crime administration in my lifetime. Probably ever.

	▲	vkou 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		At the same time as pardoning the Jan 6 insurrectionists, he's seeking multi-year felony convictions for... People standing in front of an ICE bus.[1] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/jun/12/stuckart-relea... [1] Apparently, if Tank Man[2] was present in the US in 2025, he'd be guilty of 'Unlawful imprisonment'. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

▲ iwontberude 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

bakies 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

not to deny the allegations but every president has had their arm twisted by Israel and sell out to oil.

▲

weregiraffe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	iwontberude a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ahh you failed to use scare quotes, so I win

▲ schmuckonwheels 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Now do per capita emissions and consider where 90% of anything you buy is manufactured. The world launders its manufacturing emissions through China.

	▲	bakies 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		`# Country CO2/capita CO2 total (2022) Population - ------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------------- 1 China 8.89 12,667,428,430 1,425,179,569 2 United States 14.21 4,853,780,240 341,534,046 3 India 1.89 2,693,034,100 1,425,423,212` To save others the google search I did
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	marknutter 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm sure the climate will be just fine because China's per capita isn't as bad as the US.

▲ clayhacks 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America is still the largest historical polluter by a mile and China has already hit peak emissions. They are doing much better than America on this front. At this rate they’ll hit net zero before we will

▲ fpoling 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

China population is 4 times of US.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And a good portion of their pollution is on behalf of that much smaller population.

▲ triceratops 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Any investment by China is clearly because they found a way to profit from it

An investment that doesn't make a profit is kinda pointless. Business 101.

> Your neighbor thinks he's saving the world filling his roof with cheap Chinese solar panels

And he's right. God bless him for having more sense than you.

> ignoring the toxic chemicals and human cost that went into manufacturing it

Yeah no toxic chemicals or human cost whatsoever went into digging up your coal and gasoline.

Tell us honestly: why do you gain by lying?

▲ epistasis 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If somebody does pollution for a while how in the world would that make them ineligible from being the leader in the future technologies that stop the pollution?

I am not following your logic or point here. The US has been the leading polluter, would that somehow stop us from saving the world from pollute if we came up with the technology for the rest of the world to stop polluting? Of course not. It's a very strange whataboutism that you are purveying that gets repeated frequently in online forums, but doesn't stand up to a little bit of back-and-forth.

▲ SeanAnderson 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

per capita? or?

	▲	Filligree 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		2-3x absolute. And of course they make a lot of our goods.

▲ unethical_ban 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pollutant-wise, are you insinuating that solar and wind and battery manufacturing is more polluting overall than the extraction and burning of fossil fuels they replace?

▲

unethical_ban 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Parent deleted his comment with insults and got flagged dead. Perhaps insulting those with legitimate questions and people who have long-term accounts (indicating a lack of low-effort brigading ala reddit) isn't the best method, particularly when you don't respond to any of those questions. A bit of a "look in the mirror" moment.

	▲	schmuckonwheels 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing to do with my comment or your reply specifically. I suspected bot voting manipulation and this entire discussion is filled with absolutely stupid Reddit-style comments. People posting substantive comments were being downvoted. Some of the dumbest, low quality comments I read here come from 10+ year old accounts so account age has no correlation to discussion quality. I can't argue in good faith when everyone is acting like children.

▲

ikekkdcjkfke 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends on the regulations where the processes are happening

▲ pengaru 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> China is by far the world's biggest polluter, by a factor of 2-3x that of the US so let's not paint them as some beacon of environmental stewardship.

China's leading the planet in development and deployment of renewable energy tech.

What proportion of China's emissions are a consequence of The West's externalizing the manufacturing of what it consumes?

At least with China in the driver's seat it looks like the planet's manufacturing needs will actually get cleaned up. Meanwhile the US will keep pearl clutching as it fades into irrelevance and Zimbabwean hyperinflation.