Meanwhile, the US gets away with merely “insufficient”, and the UK is apparently “almost sufficient”?

At least Canada is also “highly insufficient”, which yeah, as a Canadian, I couldn’t agree more.

Also, without delving into their methodology, something tells me that the biggest reason for these results is that they’re not considering or not sufficiently weighing population size/density or the fact that countries trade goods and services with each other (for example, the majority of China’s manufacturing is done exclusively for the West, so shouldn’t the carbon footprint of those be apart of the West and not China?) Just a hunch, but if true, it essentially invalidates their entire dataset because, get this, the world is not magically divided into discrete countries as far as the climate/environment is concerned!

  • Comrade Leah
    link
    122 years ago

    well yeah so is every single other country right now

  • BANNED
    link
    112 years ago

    30% of china’s energy comes from nuclear and renewable sources whereas the U.S is only 21%. Liberals seething coping and shidding to make a country of a population 1.4B compared to a country of 333M

  • Fiona (she/her)🏳️‍⚧️
    link
    62 years ago

    Is this dumb site ranking countries on what they say they’ll do? Am I reading this correctly? Like half of the things listed are “targets” and “initiatives” and “promises”.

    • Marxism-FennekinismOP
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Yes. And they seem to be taking those promises at their word too, even for countries cough US cough that have failed to meet their own stated goals again and again.