The Climate thread

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13436]

1 hour ago, RayDog said:

That study does not take into account other studies that show that as water has been added to the oceans and the water expands due to temperature increases the sea floor has been lowering and the continents rising.

The rising effect is even more significant since Antarctica is surrounded by a ring of mid-ocean rifts while Antarctica does not have any major subduction zones. It only has one major row of volcanos and certainly not anywhere near the length of subduction zones to equal the expansion rift zones. So we must expect the entire Antartic continent to rise over time.

That makes their analysis meaningless.

Explained here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-bedrock-west-antarctica-surprisingly-rapid.amp

Actually appears to be positive news for those deeply concerned about the ice melting.

[Bookman 4769]

3 hours ago, Casual Encounter said:

Explained here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-bedrock-west-antarctica-surprisingly-rapid.amp

Actually appears to be positive news for those deeply concerned about the ice melting.

Why would that not be positive news for everyone?

[Dahobbs 18391]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Long winded way of saying I hope the equilibrium can take care of itself in a manner that suits us, because I doubt anything we do will have an impact since we won’t be unwinding the industrial revolution any time soon and going back to hunting and gathering with primitive tools. 

The plan of "doing nothing and hoping everything works out despite evidence to the contrary" seems, uh, stupid. I'm also pretty sure that is Todd Orlando's defensive strategy. 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Meanwhile, I have a fb timeline that has pictures of fat grizzlies in the Yellowstone area. They don’t eat salmon ever. Bears are omnivores.  So...anecdotal examples either way still don’t prove anything.

So turning moving gas vehicles into idling gas vehicles helps how?

Full disclosure I haven’t read the link yet, and I might or might not after I post, and some or all of the following may be addressed within.

1. 140 years is a blip in time

2.  How much warmer are we talking?  0.1 C? 0.5?  0.05?

3.  How accurate were measurements globally 140 years ago, back before we ever had been to the poles?  100 years ago?  50 years ago?  

4) if our measuring devices were only accurate to within a degree or two and the increases we are talking about are a degree or less, is the data even appropriate to use?

 

Theres an equilibrium at play here between plant photosynthesis, animal aerobic respiration, and who knows what else. Higher temps and co2 should lead to more plants, which would convert the co2 and stabilize the temps. 

But IIRC a large amount of the photosynthesis is done by phytoplankton and if we fuck up the oceanic pH to the point that they cannot survive, that’s where shit goes south quickly. How adaptable can they be when stressed?  Things that regenerate quickly can adjust to changes better. 

Long winded way of saying I hope the equilibrium can take care of itself in a manner that suits us, because I doubt anything we do will have an impact since we won’t be unwinding the industrial revolution any time soon and going back to hunting and gathering with primitive tools. 

 

Anecdotal examples never prove anything. Many many anecdotal examples are more and more evidence. Fat grizzlies in yellowstone could be due to any number of things, climate change related or not. Lets let the yellowstone grizzly experts figure that one out.

 

1. A blip in time that has seen temp change at a rate greater than ever before. Its not the change, its the rate of change.

2. See number 1.

3. You can still see trends even with inaccurate data. Statistics, how do they work?

4. Yes.

 

Who knows what else? We know what else- increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels is what else.

Yes, acidification of the oceans is one of our concerns, dude.

We can do a lot without having to go back to hunting and gathering.

 

tldr: You really don't know what you are talking about.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 9/18/2019 at 9:36 AM, zork said:

I did read it.  No need for cataclysmic discussion when the facts can say it for you.  How many entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth since 1989?

Well the USSR is gone... and so is Burma....

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 10/20/2019 at 3:51 PM, BNB said:

 

 

Climate protesters stopping traffic.
This guy is my hero.

 

Well, I dig the cut of his jib, but damn he angry.

[Pato del Muerto 53581]

38 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The plan of "doing nothing and hoping everything works out despite evidence to the contrary" seems, uh, stupid. I'm also pretty sure that is Todd Orlando's defensive strategy. 

Not my plan. It is my opinion that whatever is done will not be sufficient to affect the system, especially if India and China don’t help. 

So i’m down to hoping the system is resistant to too much change and will re-equilibrate without temperatures rising to the point of damage to too much life. 

[Dahobbs 18391]

21 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Not my plan. It is my opinion that whatever is done will not be sufficient to affect the system, especially if India and China don’t help. 

So i’m down to hoping the system is resistant to too much change and will re-equilibrate without temperatures rising to the point of damage to too much life. 

China is helping out, including massive investments in renewable energy. Their absolute numbers will be higher than ours for awhile because their population is 4x ours, but they are making an effort to address the problem. By all means, look at the per capita CO2 values and tell me the US is doing its share to address a global problem (it isn't). Anyway, you know what they say, hope in one hand, shit in the other, and see which gets filled first. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13436]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

Why would that not be positive news for everyone?

Many people don’t care so the news isn’t positive or negative to them.

[gmr548 16704]

I'm also pretty sure that is Todd Orlando's defensive strategy. 

Damn it, I came here to the CR to escape the misery of the football board. Don't foootball this thread!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[GSU&UT 1799]

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

 

Damn it, I came here to the CR to escape the misery of the football board. Don't foootball this thread!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

 

When you're coming to CR to escape sports you know your team is in a good place lol.

[zork 629]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well, I dig the cut of his jib, but damn he angry.

fuck yea

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Not my plan. It is my opinion that whatever is done will not be sufficient to affect the system, especially if India and China don’t help. 

So i’m down to hoping the system is resistant to too much change and will re-equilibrate without temperatures rising to the point of damage to too much life. 

 

Stop parroting Republican talking points. It only makes you look uninformed.

[Cacti 191]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

China is helping out, including massive investments in renewable energy.

You forgot to mention that they are also the largest investors of overseas coal plants, and that they are also firing up new plants within their own borders.

Quote

 

I think on one hand, China has already become the largest manufacturer developer and investor when it comes to some of the most advanced renewable technologies," Greenpeace's Li said.

But on the other hand... China is pumping money into coal, both at home but also overseas.

 

… even as China reiterated its commitment to reducing emissions last week in New York, earlier this month at least three large, new coal-fired power stations appeared to be either operating or under construction in Inner Mongolia in northern China -- including Mengneng Xilin.

… Chinese financial institutions are the world’s largest investor of overseas coal plants, pumping in $15 billion in coal projects from 2013 to 2016 through international development funds, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based non-profit environmental advocacy group. There’s another $13 billion in proposed funding.

Link

Link

[Dahobbs 18391]

14 minutes ago, Cacti said:

You forgot to mention that they are also the largest investors of overseas coal plants, and that they are also firing up new plants within their own borders.

… even as China reiterated its commitment to reducing emissions last week in New York, earlier this month at least three large, new coal-fired power stations appeared to be either operating or under construction in Inner Mongolia in northern China -- including Mengneng Xilin.

… Chinese financial institutions are the world’s largest investor of overseas coal plants, pumping in $15 billion in coal projects from 2013 to 2016 through international development funds, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based non-profit environmental advocacy group. There’s another $13 billion in proposed funding.

Link

Link

No doubt . I'm not saying China is the perfect actor. But, compared to the US, which is literally responsible for about 1/3rd of human generated emission since 1750 (nearly twice that of 2nd place China) and currently has per capita emissions more than twice that of China, it is looking pretty good.  Given that context, saying "what about China" rings pretty fucking hollow to me.  

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not saying China is the perfect actor.

I know you’re not, but China is not even a good actor, at least not yet. According to Climate Action Tracker, China's carbon emissions rose an estimated 2.3% in 2018, the second consecutive year of growth after emissions appeared to stall between 2014 and 2016.

Quote

 But, compared to the US, which is literally responsible for about 1/3rd of human generated emission since 1750 (nearly twice that of 2nd place China) 

No doubt we are responsible for a disproportionate share of past emissions, as are all industrialized nations. But we can’t do anything about past emissions; what matters is future world-wide reductions, and we can’t do that without the current, major offenders seriously addressing the issue. So it’s fair for China to ask “what about the U.S.” and it’s also fair for us to ask “what about China and India.”

[Dahobbs 18391]

2 minutes ago, Cacti said:

I know you’re not, but China is not even a good actor, at least not yet. According to Climate Action Tracker, China's carbon emissions rose an estimated 2.3% in 2018, the second consecutive year of growth after emissions appeared to stall between 2014 and 2016.

No doubt we are responsible for a disproportionate share of past emissions, as are all industrialized nations. But we can’t do anything about past emissions; what matters is future world-wide reductions, and we can’t do that without the current, major offenders seriously addressing the issue. So it’s fair for China to ask “what about the U.S.” and it’s also fair for us to ask “what about China and India.”

On a per capita basis, compared to China and all industrialized nations we are the major offender. I agree China needs to work on reductions, but its heavy investment in renewables is a huge fucking step in that direction. Our current leadership will not even acknowledge a problem exists. Again, given that context, the complaints of the typical folks saying "what about China" are fucking laughable. We would need to cut our emissions in half to reach China's level, or by 2/3rds to match much of Europe.

[gmr548 16704]

The venn diagram of people who use China as a cop out for not addressing climate change and those who loudly proclaim America to be the greatest country on Earth, and take great offense to any suggestion that in any way contradicts that, has got to be pretty close to a prefect circle.

 

Then there's a second circle next to it for people who see the irony in that.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

3 hours ago, Cacti said:

I know you’re not, but China is not even a good actor, at least not yet. According to Climate Action Tracker, China's carbon emissions rose an estimated 2.3% in 2018, the second consecutive year of growth after emissions appeared to stall between 2014 and 2016.

No doubt we are responsible for a disproportionate share of past emissions, as are all industrialized nations. But we can’t do anything about past emissions; what matters is future world-wide reductions, and we can’t do that without the current, major offenders seriously addressing the issue. So it’s fair for China to ask “what about the U.S.” and it’s also fair for us to ask “what about China and India.”

 

No, its not "fair" for us to ask about "what about China and India" until we actually start doing something substantial.

[Cacti 191]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, given that context, the complaints of the typical folks saying "what about China" are fucking laughable. We would need to cut our emissions in half to reach China's level, or by 2/3rds to match much of Europe.

It’s not a complaint to bring up China or India when discussing greenhouse emissions. Those countries are major polluters and they deserve scrutiny just as we do. Even if we were to cut America’s per capita emissions to China’s level, the IPCC’s goals of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction will not be met, and that’s because the referenced countries—as well as other countries and regions—will have to significantly reduce their emissions. Currently, they are not.

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

No, its not "fair" for us to ask about "what about China and India" until we actually start doing something substantial.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That’s nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. Obviously, that doesn’t meet your definition of substantial. So what specific actions do you recommend we take before we can fairly bring China into the discussion?  

[Dahobbs 18391]

15 minutes ago, Cacti said:

It’s not a complaint to bring up China or India when discussing greenhouse emissions. Those countries are major polluters and they deserve scrutiny just as we do. Even if we were to cut America’s per capita emissions to China’s level, the IPCC’s goals of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction will not be met, and that’s because the referenced countries—as well as other countries and regions—will have to significantly reduce their emissions. Currently, they are not.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That’s nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. Obviously, that doesn’t meet your definition of substantial. So what specific actions do you recommend we take before we can fairly bring China into the discussion?  

We dont get a cookie for having per capita emissions that were so high that reducing them to just the highest level in the western world is a massive reduction. 

I have no problem saying everyone else needs to reduce too (though it is still mainly us). I have a huge problem when countries are like India and China are used as an excuse for us doing nothing. That is how this topic started. It is a bullshit argument because (1) it just leads to inaction by everyone and (2) by pretty much every objective measure we are the worst. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Dahobbs

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

(2) by pretty much every objective measure we are the worst. 

Actually scientists have determined that 25% to 50% of glacial melting is due to soot. China, India, Brazil and even the EU are worse soot producers, so there is that.

To help that we (globally) need to stop burning fields, forests and trash, eliminate dirtier forms of fuel oil an diesel burning, and adopt cleaner cooking methods.

That said, if someone wants to take my smoker, we have a problem. 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

9 hours ago, Cacti said:

It’s not a complaint to bring up China or India when discussing greenhouse emissions. Those countries are major polluters and they deserve scrutiny just as we do. Even if we were to cut America’s per capita emissions to China’s level, the IPCC’s goals of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction will not be met, and that’s because the referenced countries—as well as other countries and regions—will have to significantly reduce their emissions. Currently, they are not.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That’s nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. Obviously, that doesn’t meet your definition of substantial. So what specific actions do you recommend we take before we can fairly bring China into the discussion?  

 

758 million metric tons sounds like a lot!!!

How much is that compared to what we release? What the world releases? What we need to curtail based on the recommendations of the climate scientists and physicists who study climate change?

Those reductions were do to normal market forces, as well as the great recession. How much could we reduce if we actually tried? What would china and india and whoever else do if we made huge reductions and demonstrated to the world that these reductions could be done with minimal economic harm?

I am neither a climate scientist nor a policy maker. You want specific actions that drastically, immediately curtail CO2 emissions? Read a fucking newspaper: those specific recommendations are out there. They have been recommended over and over and over by climate scientists, physicists, economists, policy makers, even by some energy conglomerates. 

 

But China!

But muh way of life to which I've become accustomed!

But global scientific conspiracy!

But liberals wanting to control the world!

 

 

[Dahobbs 18391]

9 hours ago, RayDog said:

Actually scientists have determined that 25% to 50% of glacial melting is due to soot. China, India, Brazil and even the EU are worse soot producers, so there is that.

To help that we (globally) need to stop burning fields, forests and trash, eliminate dirtier forms of fuel oil an diesel burning, and adopt cleaner cooking methods.

That said, if someone wants to take my smoker, we have a problem. 

I was referring specifically to CO2 emissions. 

[zork 629]

 

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[zork 629]

howdareyou.gif

[Biff Tannen 46200]

6 hours ago, zork said:

howdareyou.gif

 

[Incredulity 11880]

On 11/28/2019 at 11:13 PM, Biff Tannen said:

 

Actually... hot.  Amirite?

[GRHorn 105]

Some good tweets in this thread. Just gonna highlight a couple. 
 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46200]

Very helpful, thanks.

[elfenix 34775]

he says that people need to be accurate with their facts when reporting rather than alarmist.  he says we can engineer our way around this like we do other natrual disasters.  to illustrate engineering, he claims deaths from natural disaster are down from their 1931 peak of "3.7 million " by 99.7%.  what happened in 1931?

Quote

The 1931 China floods, or the 1931 Yangtze–Huai River floods, were a series of devastating floods that occurred in the Republic of China. They were some of the deadliest floods in history, and together formed one of the most lethal natural disasters of the 20th century,^[4] excluding pandemics and famines.^[1] Estimates of the total death toll range from 422,499^[5] to between 3.7 million and 4 million.^[2][3][6]

that seems like a pretty big range and him choosing the highest end of it kinda undercuts his point.  he's also making the statistical error of comparing 2 points on what is probably a fucking noisy chart.  sure, last year was 11,000, but one tsunami in indonesia and we're back to 20x that. 

[Brisketexan 107008]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

he says that people need to be accurate with their facts when reporting rather than alarmist.  he says we can engineer our way around this like we do other natrual disasters.  to illustrate engineering, he claims deaths from natural disaster are down from their 1931 peak of "3.7 million " by 99.7%.  what happened in 1931?

that seems like a pretty big range and him choosing the highest end of it kinda undercuts his point.  he's also making the statistical error of comparing 2 points on what is probably a fucking noisy chart.  sure, last year was 11,000, but one tsunami in indonesia and we're back to 20x that. 

All-in-all, I think it's actually a pretty decent take.  Do you think that GRHorn and his Godking Trump understand that, like, at all.  Nope.  They will do what GRHorn is doing here, and exactly (oh the irony) what the author warned against in that very article -- use it to support climate change denial bullshit.

[elfenix 34775]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

All-in-all, I think it's actually a pretty decent take.  Do you think that GRHorn and his Godking Trump understand that, like, at all.  Nope.  They will do what GRHorn is doing here, and exactly (oh the irony) what the author warned against in that very article -- use it to support climate change denial bullshit.

i was going to say something about him disagreeing with GRHorn but didn't want to overshoot GRHorn's position and get told i'm lying about it.  though i suspect GRHorn thinks this whole global warming thing is just a made up scam by the lefty cabal to get us into one world government communism. 

 

read the tweets he hid. apparently "MD" stands for Master's Degree.  what a douchecadet. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by elfenix

[Brisketexan 107008]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i was going to say something about him disagreeing with GRHorn but didn't want to overshoot GRHorn's position and get told i'm lying about it.  though i suspect GRHorn thinks this whole global warming thing is just a made up scam by the lefty cabal to get us into one world government communism. 

 

dude is getting hammered in the comments.  apparently "MD" stands for Master's Degree.  what a douchecadet. 

Yeah, his use of the 1931 floods as a baseline is pretty indefensible.  Seriously, that's just sloppy.  But the general thesis -- let's stick with what we know, as opposed to hyperbole and histrionics -- has merit.  Likewise, his suggestion that we look at the long game, and the fact that we MUST acknowledge the process of development in places like India, are both very realistic and must be part of the conversation.

I'm absolutely a believer in climate change.  And I believe that it's a slow-moving natural disaster.  But I also believe that we have to engage in a realistic and practical conversation.  E.g., we can't just tell India "stop burning fossil fuels, sorry if that craters your economic development."  The real question is "how do we get India to a place where reduction in carbon emissions is a realistic and achievable goal?"

But again, you and I and everyone worth a shit knows that this piece 1) won't actually be read, and 2) will just be used to argue that climate change is fake news promulgated by libtards.

[elfenix 34775]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

E.g., we can't just tell India "stop burning fossil fuels, sorry if that craters your economic development."  The real question is "how do we get India to a place where reduction in carbon emissions is a realistic and achievable goal?"

which is why the US needs to be a global leader on building green infrastructure.  otherwise china is selling it everywhere and we're getting left out.  middle of east buttfucking egypt in africa isn't being electrified by a big central jiggawatt (yes axiom, i know it's spelled gigawatt, go watch a movie sometime) level nuclear power station - it's getting electrified by small diesel generators.  MW size wind turbines and storage are the green competitor to that. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by elfenix

[Brisketexan 107008]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

which is why the US needs to be a global leader on building green infrastructure.  otherwise china is selling it everywhere and we're getting left out.  middle of east buttfucking egypt in africa isn't being electrified by a big central jiggawatt (yes axiom, i know it's spelled gigawatt, go watch a movie sometime) level nuclear power station - it's getting electrified by small diesel generators.  MW size wind turbines and storage are the green competitor to that. 

Yep.  All of that technology is coming, and advancing every day.  And our culture is one of "fuck that shit, burn coal and oil or you're a pussy!"....meanwhile, China is the largest producer of green energy products.  We want to double down on our buggy whip industry, when everyone knows that the automobile is coming.  Just stupid.  But then, "shortsighted and stupid' is our brand.

 

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

I recently read the book "Factfullness" by Hans Rosling which addressed this very issue of natural disaster deaths.  I could not find the graph that was in the book, but the first 3 minutes of his TED talk covers it among other things.

 

[Foosters 18287]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

he says that people need to be accurate with their facts when reporting rather than alarmist.  he says we can engineer our way around this like we do other natrual disasters.  to illustrate engineering, he claims deaths from natural disaster are down from their 1931 peak of "3.7 million " by 99.7%.  what happened in 1931?

that seems like a pretty big range and him choosing the highest end of it kinda undercuts his point.  he's also making the statistical error of comparing 2 points on what is probably a fucking noisy chart.  sure, last year was 11,000, but one tsunami in indonesia and we're back to 20x that. 

Kinda undercuts his point?

Its like saying everyone should stop bitching about the Boeing planes nosediving into the ground because airline deaths are way down from their high of 2800+ in 2001.

[Pato del Muerto 53581]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

All-in-all, I think it's actually a pretty decent take.  Do you think that GRHorn and his Godking Trump understand that, like, at all.  Nope.  They will do what GRHorn is doing here, and exactly (oh the irony) what the author warned against in that very article -- use it to support climate change denial bullshit.

There’s not much space available for people that are climate change believers but timeline skeptics.  

[zork 629]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  All of that technology is coming, and advancing every day.  And our culture is one of "fuck that shit, burn coal and oil or you're a pussy!"....meanwhile, China is the largest producer of green energy products.  We want to double down on our buggy whip industry, when everyone knows that the automobile is coming.  Just stupid.  But then, "shortsighted and stupid' is our brand.

 

Well, nevertheless, USA led China in per capita solar production as late as 2018 using estimated 2019 population.

[Neonmoon 38130]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  All of that technology is coming, and advancing every day.  And our culture is one of "fuck that shit, burn coal and oil or you're a pussy!"....meanwhile, China is the largest producer of green energy products.  We want to double down on our buggy whip industry, when everyone knows that the automobile is coming.  Just stupid.  But then, "shortsighted and stupid' is our brand.

 

China is also the largest producer on coal on the planet, by a large margin. And they are increasing the gap every year. While the US is continuing its decrease in coal production year by year. 

I realize the US is full of idiots, but if you want to have an legitimate conversation on energy demand v supply, let’s not pretend China is leading the World’s Green Party. 

We do need to increase our investment in solar and wind, and hydro. Not only because it helps combat climate change, but because clean energy is better ran dirty energy. 
 

 

[zork 629]

In wind power the USA is killing China on a per capita basis.

[Brisketexan 107008]

In wind power the USA is killing China on a per capita basis.

In terms of exporting green energy...they’re killing it: https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/

[zork 629]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In terms of exporting green energy...they’re killing it: https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/
 

That isn't exactly WTO type of activity.  China is using their government to fund their installations of their technology.  It would be like US Fed government buying Boeing planes for other countries, sort of.

BTW:

Quote

Not only is China today the world’s largest producer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles, but it has also been the top investor in clean energy for nine out of the last ten years, according to the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.

That is not true on a per capita basis.

[Brisketexan 107008]

That is not true on a per capita basis.

I don’t much care if they’re playing 3 on 1. They’re still beating us. And, check the rate of increase in investment and activity - they’re beating us there, too.

[zork 629]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I don’t much care if they’re playing 3 on 1. They’re still beating us. And, check the rate of increase in investment and activity - they’re beating us there, too.

So per capita only counts if it is to bash the USA on the polluting side of the ledger?