The US under Trump is going to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and probably no longer going to COPs. They are the biggest supporter of Israel and climate reparations are going to be a very hard sell, with the largest historic emitter not paying anything at all. Actually it is even worse as the US already is giving less then other historical emitters. So best case is that mainly Europe pays for the US share as well and stops its support for Israel.

Also the headline is deliberatly missleading. Gaza is obviously not a massive topic at a COP.

Cooperative banking begs to differ, that the problem is them being a bank.

The original press release:

https://globalcarbonbudget.org/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-increase-again-in-2024/

And this is how we can turn Florida blue.

When you adjust for trade it still would be China, USA and then EU in terms of total emissions. In terms of per capita the US leads, but by now I am not sure if China or the EU has higher emissions. Europe is obviously worse though, as Russia is a massive polluter.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions?tab=table&time=earliest..2021

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27

If no location is found, then it defaults to Germany hosting the COP.

Same reason BP promoted the carbon footprint. They want COP to look like proper climate action, so less people use their energy to do something better. COP looking like an oil sells event, is awful PR for them.

The EU had an 8% decline in emissions last year. That is roughly in line with meeting the 1.5C target and mainly done using reasonable policy.

China also invests a lot in Green technology. With the trade war, it is certainly possible that the Chinese economy crashes, which would mean lower energy consumption growth and hence lower Chinese emissions.

There also is a strong chance that Trump launches a massive war in the Middle East. He loves Israel and bombing Arabs. If that includes attacks on oil and gas infrastructure, that could be great for the climate(although horrible on so many other levels).

They got a deal done, which does not seem to solve the border conflict, but just allows patrols from both sites:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/22/how-india-and-china-pulled-back-from-a-border-war-and-why

A lot of countries do not like China. India and China have regulare border fights that alone is massive, the EU does not like China too much either(Ukraine being a big part of that), Indonesia has just hit China with 200% on textiles, Mexico, Brazil and Chile have added anti dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, Thailand is looking into Chinese dumping as well. There also are border conflicts with the seven dash line with most nearby countries like Vietnam, Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia.

BRICS is a group of countries, who do not like the US. That however does not mean they like China. That is why you hear the term multipolar world order a lot from those countries. As in no country should rule the world.

Migrants in America are fucked as well. Mass deportation, if they are lucky, if not they kill them.

She has done something for the climate in the past and unlike Trump actually understands that climate change is real.

For a few months.

Do you prefer Vance?

The EU is a massive car exporter and the car industry in Europe is not doing that great right now. That is due to European companies producing EVs in China and then bringing them into the EU. So the EU trying to force them to keep car factories open is just logical. Hence the probe and the targetted tariffs, based on the subsidies they recieve from the Chinese government.

Also, the tarrifs I’m complaining about aren’t Carbon-related, nor imposed by China(where on earth did you even get that absurd idea?), but they would stack in an awful manner.

The article you post under is literally called: “China Confronts Europe Over Climate-Based Trade Restrictions”. Also I have no idea, where I wrote anything about China imposing tariffs. Just that those are not fixed, but flexible based on certain criteria.

2004. That is cumulative emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=USA~CHN

A lot of high income countries did not have their industrial revolution less then a century ago. That was a bit post WW1, so it was mainly Western Europe besides the Iberian peninsula, US, Canada and Australia, which were industrialized a century ago. Japan did really start to grow in 1960, as did Spain and Italy. South Korea went up in the 1980s. Many already have had peak per capita emissions some time ago. Then you have problems like South Africa and Russia, which both have high emissions, but are not that rich. Russias per capita emissions are above those of the EU since 1951 for example. Time is also a problem, as in countries have falling emissions and others have increased, so that needs to be included. Also technology changed. Things like solar, wind turbines, electric cars, even electric trains, nuclear power plants and so forth are well developed technologies today. That was not the case a century ago. Besides that global climate change and knowledge of human impacts of it, are relativly recent, it only started being a somewhat discussed political point in the 70s.

Point is, that it is complex and there honestly should be a formular to determine each countries contribution and that should include new emissions. Depending on how it is calculated that can absolutly include China.

It really does not matter too much to the planet, if products consumed in the EU produce emissions in China or the EU. However the EU has well working emission trading sytem, which in the coming years, will make carbon intensive manufacturing all but impossible in the EU. That becomes useless, if companies just end up producing in China instead, using old fossil fuel based factories. So having a carbon tariff is a great option. If China indeed cares about the planet, then they can produce in a sustainable fashion and export with no carbon tariff to the EU. Also the from the EU carbon tariff is lowered by the cost of carbon in the producing country. So China can just increase their carbon price to meet the EU level.

If China goes green, then the carbon tariff is zero. If Chinas carbon price is as high or higher then the EUs, then the carbon tariff is zero.

As for cars there is the option for manufacturers to show how high Chinese subsidies are. If they do not get subsidies, then they do not have to pay tariffs. Btw the EU has a fossil fuel car phase out date in law, unlike China.

China is the biggest emitter in the world. If they do not lower their emissions, which this clearly shows they have no intresst in doing, then we are all fucked.

China is richer then the global average and at this point about average in terms of per capita cummulative emissions. It does not need special protection anymore.

The US spends 3.4% of GDP in defence. Israel is at 5.3%. Also the US only spends a bit more then 3x what China spends and well US products are more expensive. So the US can probably fund its military for quite some time, without too many problems and right wingers love to do it, to bomb the shit out of people.