Select Page

Biden sells out US to China with UN climate deal

Biden sells out US to China with UN climate deal

The international community had been promoting climate change agreements since the 1990s.  President Clinton put the United States into the Kyoto Agreement.  President Obama followed the same approach with the Paris Accords.  And now we have President Biden.

Among the major proponents and negotiators for these deals have been folks like former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore. 

(Kerry seems to be behind every bad deal for the United States – and the world.  We should not forget that he was behind the God-awful Iran Nuclear Deal that President Trump terminated – and which Biden and Kerry are attempting to renew.  It is a gift to a terrorist nation that we should be working to undermine.  But I digress.)

The current climate deal was brokered at the United Nations COP27 conference.  That should be the first red flag.  The United Nations rarely works in the interest of the United States.

All these deals have one common thread. 

The wealthy and successful nations are to undermine their own economies to support climate initiatives in so-called undeveloped nations – nations that lack the financial resources and technical talent to fight climate change on their own.

According to the deal, the United States will provide billions of dollars to those so-called undeveloped nations to help them reduce carbon emissions.  In addition to the billions of dollars to be shipped overseas, the United States will continue the Green New Deal plan to eliminate as much fossil fuel as possible – as soon as possible – to the great detriment of the American economy and our leadership in the world of commerce.  

This is not a win/win situation.  Their gain is our loss.

As if these deals have not been disadvantageous enough to the United States, there is an even more imponderable factor.  It is China.

China is one of the major polluters of the world’s atmosphere.  But in every deal – Kyoto, Paris, and Biden’s UN agreement – China is considered a developing nation – meaning that it is not required to provide any money to those smaller nations — and China can actually be on the receiving end.

They are officially considered a developing nation even though they have the world’s second largest economy.  China is the development and manufacturing center of some of the most advanced technologies. 

They are generally credited with being the most advanced developer of Artificial Intelligence in the world — with computer technology that surpasses the United States.  They are catching up to America – and surpassing Russia – in space exploration.  They have one of the largest and most advanced militaries on the planet – second only to the United States.

This is just another example of Biden’s peculiarly friendly actions when it comes to the Middle Kingdom.  And nothing is more inexplicable than Biden’s willingness to enter an agreement to so patently benefit China to the detriment of the United States.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Miles collins

    He’s had a lot of dealings with China. Treason??? But what about it. Nobody cares.

  2. Frank stetson

    As I look at this, one must realize that it’s a straw-man, only the general concepts of the fund have been established. I’m not sure that funding amounts, funding, disbursements, processes, or anything has been finalized yet.

    The fact that China is seen as a developing nation is a problem for all UN activities. And no way should this climate fund be established and used if China is still a developing nation beneficiary. However, there may be a few countries in this regard, including Saudi Arabia. All need to be fixed, not just China.

    The sad part is that while this fund was established, and imo, that is a good thing, they did nothing to reduce carbon-based emissions especially from China and other developing nations. That’s a crime.

    It’s a good thing, because as the nation that pollutes more of this planet, more than any other nation in history until China catches up, will probably end up giving aid to countries that are destroyed by climate change like the Pakistani floods last year anyways. I think having all nations put into this fund, might even save America money, potentially, possibly, just not probably.

    Because the sad part is that this fund, while conceptual a good idea in my opinion, will probably end up like the funding to support NATO, where we put in 100% and no one else matches.

    Lastly, Congress will still have to approve the funding and I could be quite the fight.

    What it is.

    • Rick

      Carbon is plant and tree food. Green houses pump in extra to get better plant growth. The whole fake man made climate change is a farce and huge hoax to control humans. The evil global cabal always uses things you can’t see like carbon and viruses as a way to control us and take away our freedom. Your demonocrats and many of the repukelicans are all in on the lies. Your biden also just signed us up, along with 18 other countries for digital vaccine passports to further the process of taking our freedoms away.

      • bibfy

        rick has his head way up in that ass of his. yes, co2 is used by plants, that’s the product of burning carbon, not the carbon itself. And plants can only consume so much. Humans produce much, much more. Idiot.

        Climate change a hox? Just natural? Who cares. Let’s just pollute God’s garden less. Let’s quit shitting where we eat.

        Viruses are a global cabal plot — yeah, by God and bad human practices. idiot.

        If you don’t like the digital vaccine passport, take a bus or a boat. Idiot. Vaccines have one of the BEST safety records of any manmade product. Much safer than whatever you’re drinking to cause such a stupor.

        • Rick

          I guess you have had all of the poison pokes, so the world will not need to deal much longer with you. But, I wont call you and idiot. You’re just gullible. All demonocrats are.

          • Bibfy

            And the statistics say more vaccinated, live, more unvaccinated die. More Democrats live, more Republicans die.

            They are probably lying to.

            But I do not think so.

            Vaccines, in general, are one of the safest products mankind has ever created. Might be safer than the microwave… There is just not a lot of evidence to support your belief and a hell of a lot of evidence contradicting your belief. Of course, they are probably lying to.

            One thing a certain. One of us is living a lie.

        • larry Horist

          bibfy … Human emit about 10 percent of co2. The vast majority comes from land and sea. Stay tuned. I have a commentary coming up on that subject.

          • Rick

            I’m pretty sure that one volcano eruption produces more than man could ever do. Thanks larry, I look forward to reading your commentary.

          • frank stetson


            Be sure to address the plus and minus side of the ledger and how nature generally disperses all the co2 it produces while man —– not so much so. And how changing the equilibrium even just a bit can have interesting effects of lifeforms, like plants, animals, humans, and dinosaurs — not always in a good way.

            And Rick, no. Sorry. Look it up.

            So, IMO, we can clean up our act before the release by releasing less OR we can clean it up after by building giant scrubbers, changing what we farm and adding new, probably GMO-based, plants to tolerate changing climates, and even new med’s to gobble down to thwart climate-change inspired maladies.

            Larry, there is no way you can look at our releases, especially China’s, and conclude no harm, no foul. We live in a garden of Eden. There is no way I want to be blamed for tearing it all down. The air is not as clean as it was, the oceans are not as clean as they where. We think about not having enough water. I am living proof that you can pollute less, recoup all your expenditures, live more comfortably without extra sweaters in the winter, while driving more, polluting less. It was not that hard and not that much inconvenience.

            I live by a simple adage: it is better to pollute less than to pollute more. We made that mean something in the 70’s; I think kids today (as in under 65) can do even better. The US has reduced it’s emissions, if we can do it, anyone can. And the economy grew.

            So be sure to look at both sides of the CO2 ledger, look forward to your results.

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            It is irrelevant what percentage of CO2 is caused by humans. The percentage of global warming caused by humans is 100%. If you add 10%, the systems are no longer balanced. The ocean and land CO2 systems were balanced for millions of years until about 70 years ago.

            A real world analog: Russia produces about 2% of world oil, but take that away and you have worldwide oil shortages. 2% doesn’t sound like much, but in a balanced system it’s a lot.

            Another real-world analog: a closed room with a few plants and a small animal might support that animal indefinitely, but add a much bigger human and suddenly the room won’t support either of them. The level of CO2 in outside air has risen from approximately 300 to 420 ppm in the last 50-70 years. 5000ppm will kill you in 8 hours, 30,000ppm in 10 minutes. But over 1000ppm will cause drowsiness and headaches, even in a short time.

            The real issue is CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and causes global warming. At the same time, oil companies flare off methane, which is even worse than CO2. Methane is also generated by burning fossil fuels inefficiently.

            Global warming makes hot spots that catch on fire, which causes smoke, which causes more warming. Deforestation means less trees to recycle less CO2 into breathable oxygen, and sequester less carbon from the atmosphere, and less vegetation to cool the ground. Warmer air holds more water, which means some places get drier. Paradoxically, when it does rain, it rains a whole lot more because there is more moisture in the air. Unfortunately, that causes flooding and the runoff doesn’t have time to soak into the soil, so it affects agriculture and makes droughts worse because that water can’t be used.

            Warmer ocean waters feed bigger hurricanes and extend monsoon seasons. At the same time, warming accelerates melting of the glaciers (which normally feed rivers during the summer) and it causes melting of Arctic ice, which is causing ocean levels to rise. (most of Florida is only about 3 feet above sea level, and melting ice in the artic will probably cause the oceans to rise that much in the next 100 years.) Warming also changes the flows of water around the earth, which changes weather patterns on land. We’ve seen hot spots of 130-140 degrees in places like Seattle and Vancouver, and parts of Europe have had heat waves at 110F where that never ever happened before.

            Larry, you didn’t explicitly say it, but if you’re implying that humans contribute ONLY 10% of CO2, and it’s therefore a minor piece of the problem, then you’re (literally) dead wrong. As in, the whole planet could die if we don’t reverse the problem soon.

        • Upsidedownjack1

          Bidding, Glad to see you “understand” GLOBAL WARMING! How about POLAR SHIFT? Or just WEATHER?

    • Tom

      Frank, Good points. I will disagree that China is “catching up” to the US in climate pollution. China for a number of years now has exceeded the amount of climate pollution that the US puts into the climate by about 27%. China pollution continues to rise while the US pollution rate has decreased for the same number of years that China’s pollution has increased. I am personally against this NATO climate change fund for a number of reasons. First is the fact that Pakistan and many other of these affected countries are enjoying many of the same products we and China enjoy, and therefore they are complicit in the overall problem at the consumption end of the equation. Second, until this year, China has been exporting cheap coal fire technology to build power plants in these countries who freely accept the Chinese doing this – and China has raked in billions in sales as well as the all important soft power – and these supposedly innocent climate stricken countries have been complicit in all of it. They knew they were polluters and did nothing, now they want funds from us. Third, some of these countries are very anti-USA. Its just another way of funneling money into corrupt authoritarian and theocratic governments that turn around and call us Satan. Here are the top ten green house gas emitters by rank by country”, source is

      Top 10 Countries with the Highest Greenhouse Gas Emissions (in million metric tons, 2019 data):* (notice 6 of 10 are not USA friendly)

      China — 9,877
      United States — 4,745
      India — 2,310
      Russia — 1,640
      Japan — 1,056
      Germany — 644
      South Korea — 586
      Iran — 583
      Canada — 571
      Saudi Arabia — 495

      I have noticed that trees like carbon and give off oxygen. This process grows tree leaves. And each year I seem to be having to clean up more and more tree leaves from my property oaks and poplars. I believe I have been damaged by this carbon emission problem and feel that I should have access to NATO funds to buy a bigger leaf blower and chipper!!!

      • Frank stetson

        Point taken. It meant for all history, I should’ve updated, especially since China is so egregious right now. I guess it was a reparations statistic. 😉

        I think the fund could be a good thing, but all of your points are well taken. I would hope that any country receiving said dollars would also be mandated to have some sort of skin in the game. I think you noted a number of pieces of skin that China should give. Otherwise, they just don’t get the cash. Most important, China, and other countries are not developing nations, but are categorized as such by the yard. Before this plan took place, that must change and then China would be off the plan. Your point about Pakistan and other countries using products from China probably is a bit of a red herring; the focus should more be on the polluters, not necessarily those who enable said polluters by buying goods.

        The Paris accord is about people polluting less. This fund is about supporting those affected by said pollution, and facing dire circumstances due to climate tragedies. Frankly, we would probably financially support them anyway, and at this point given global climate change, I still think a fund to support people in their time of need is a good idea.

        You do know that trees grow and have more leaves. After living in one spot for 30 years, I certainly know it. And after 2 80-footers came down within 10 feet of my house, I discovered the cure, cut them down. I was 8 feet away from one. The entire house moved.

        Meanwhile, the ash blight has destroyed close an entire forest for me. I have taken down 20 full sized ash trees, and they are huge. I called the power company to see if they had a program for the ones close to the lines and sadly, they said no. Neither does the state. Now I have a conundrum. I can let them fall and take out power for hundreds of people and then the power company will cut them out of the way. Or I can spend another $20,000 to take them down. It seems to me, like the fund we’re talking about, this would be a great use of tax dollars in order to retain power for hundreds of people.

        I like programs that lend a helping hand while stimulating people to do the right thing, and don’t like programs that are handouts. I hope when they complete structuring this program, it will comply with that sentiment.

        • Tom

          I agree Frank, before any fund collection and distribution, China’s status must be changed and the amount contributed by each country should be known. And as pollution and greenhouse gases decrease, so to the fund should decrease. Now, part of the problem is that many of the countries considered third world affected by global climate change are buying coal fire power plant technology from China. China just agreed this year to stop selling coal fire plants. My issue with the equation is that the one side of the equation (polluters) is in part driven by the other side of the equation (consumers). Every phone, every tv, every nice thing that these countries have (despite their supposed poverty) all the nice techology etc, all has a carbon price tag! Yes it may be a bit trivial but my point is a moral one, they bitch about the USA contributing pollution, do not bitch about China because they are indebt to China, and then they want money from us to fix their supposed problem while they invest their money in coal fire plants, and military purchases.

          India, case in point in 2021 got on the world stage calling the USA greedy because we would not donate millions of doses of Covid vaccine to them, nor give them rights to manufacture, and then a week or two later announced a deal to buy French jets. The Rafale deal controversy is a political controversy in India related to the purchase of 36 Rafale multirole fighter aircraft for a price estimated at €7.87 billion (₹58,891 Crore) by the Defence Ministry of India from France’s Dassault Aviation. So India whom is the biggest producer of pharma drugs (and is on the carbon list) does not seem to have the money to buy or develop a Covid vaccine for their people but they have roughly 8 billion dollars to buy 35 jets from the French.

          Yes I do know trees grow! LOL My point is that I personally believe I should be able to get NATO funds because my trees are responding to environmental conditions and green house gases by growing more leaves beyond the new growth leaves. Last year I hauled 11 huge tarps of leaves down to a wooded dump area. This year I still am not done and I estimate it will be 15 tarps total. So the increase in tarps is 4 over 11 or about a 36% growth in leaf loaded tarps over last year but the growth on the trees is not 36%. Thus my trees are making more leaves in a response to the excess carbons in the air that need to be captured by the trees. Hence, I am being damaged by greedy companies dumping carbon into the air and I believe my case is as good as a flood in Pakistan, I just do not have the same amount of damages. And by the way, every year the season seems to get longer. I was finished with leaf collection by December 11th last year. This year it will be longer which is a result of global warming and more rain which has been directly tied to global warming.

          Sorry to hear of your Ash blight. Is it a possibility they died because of too much green house gases in the air? Let the tree fall. Prepare by buying a solar powered generator. By the way, it would be wonderful if we got rid of all these gas burning small engines used to maintain properties from chain saws that you used and probably dumped a few thousand tons of carbon into the air, to emergency generators, lawn tractors, weed whackers, etc. None of them have any meaningful form of pollution control on them. Here is an area ripe for conversion!

          • Frank stetson

            Well, if you are needy and require a helping hand, the fund should be for you. Heck, already had our first snow and you’re still raking leaves. You should pay me. I just mow mine into the fields and woods. Actually, I have an app for that.

            I agree that small power tools create a lot of pollution. My 30 year old Wheelhorse has been putting out a puff of visible smoke ever since I bought it. Designedq that way to coat the rings. However, I have reduced my carbon for current considerably since 2006. Actually, started 30 years ago with solar hot water. Not a fast payback but after 30 years and virtually no maintenance great operating cost profile. It does make for some funny things about living. You learn that a sunny day is the best time to take a Jacuzzi, the water is close to boiling. On cloudy days, the water is much cooler being at furnace temp, which is well below boiling. Took a while to figure that one out. I’ve also reduced the carbon footprint on what I call “the fleet.“ between in-laws, kids and my wife and I, we probably reduced our carbon footprint by 50%. When you trade an explorer in for a 50 mile per gallon hybrid, it puts a big dent in your footprint. Funny story, I use cash for clunkers, the Obama program, to trade in the explorer which had new tires. So I bought clunker, tires, put them on and drove the car for the trade-in. I barely made it, and my 5 miles on the highway was frightening. Think I was crossing both lines without trying, We have pellet stoves, which have a very low pollution output and use reusable fuel. I tend to feel a little bit like Gunga Din come February and the carrying of pellets gets old. I figure with multiple lifts, I toss about 18 tons a year.. but it is worth it. If my barn ever goes up in the fall, it will be quite the fire. My heating bill is down by over 30%, and we exist at 75° quite often. It’s 30 out right now and I’m in shorts and a T-shirt. We also have been in a lot of passive solar, including 60 ft.² of solar skylights, including solar shades, backed up by a solar tile floor. The sunroom has the insulation level of a thermos bottle. My house faces what I call “farmer South” in that right now I am fully exposed to the sun in the winter sky. In the summer, your face is less favorable, and the giant overhangs protect the windows for much of the sun, since it is so high in the sky. Thank you, Mr. farmer from 1865. That’s my motto in going green: think smart, save money, drive faster, stay warmer. People always like to say going green costs more money. It sure did. But in each case, and I ran the business case, I ultimately saved money, and the purchases pay for themselves. I will admit, acceleration and comfort wise, the hybrid sucks. But now that Larry is show me the way of the electric car credit, I will look to remedy that next year. Want to bet it won’t be a Tesla.

            Meanwhile, on the tools, I have more and more electric. Yes, they take lithium batteries, but I have a solar charger. It may take a while for me to replace my chainsaws, though, not enough power for me yet. I use a lot of black and decker only because I still have my first circular saw, bought refurbished at the Black & Decker factory store at the factory in Baltimore. The new management seems to be revising the company product line so I’m trying to support them for now. I hope they make it, they are fine old company, one of Baltimore’s best.

            I appreciate all your points, don’t know enough about India to, except asking to be able to manufacture their own vaccines with our formula really doesn’t seem like that great of stretch. At least we could’ve cut em a great deal. And well I agree, consumer and producer, like to share responsibility, whoever is actively polluting should cover their own base. I should not have to cover the base for what an iPhone pollutes in manufacture. However, if there is an alternative, that pollutes less, I will always vote with my wallet.

        • Joseph S. Bruder

          The US has also exported a large share of goods production, and therefore pollution, to China. China has cheap production because they don’t have to follow pollution rules and they can burn coal for cheap energy. To remedy the situation, the world will either have to insist that China become more green (which means production costs go up), or stop buying from China and produce more in cleaner countries (which means production costs go up). Either way, people will have to pay higher costs.

          The one bright spot is that solar power is already cheaper to produce than fossil fuel power. We just can’t produce enough clean power because we can’t get governments to prioritize and incentivize the infrastructure required. Larry says he’s a Reagan Republican Conservative and that (to him) means shrinking the size of government, but this is a situation where we need a strong and large government that can push the infrastructure changeover before it’s too late to fix global warming. Also, I don’t see state governments having the resources to deal with global warming-caused climate disasters. It will be up to a strong federal government to act as the insurer of last resort.

  3. John J

    Thieving Biden, {the taker] is not mentally equipped to deal with such temptation, we need PROVEN leadership from Donald Trump to make this righe

    • bibfy

      good luck on that. he’s in the rearview, haven’t you read Larry?

  4. Bubba Love

    Democrats always sell America out on everything.

  5. Tom

    Larry, great blog. I agree with it. Kerry and Gore are two of the biggest hypocrits when it comes to climate change with Gore even having a private plan to jet everywhere to promote his “Inconvenient Truth”. And this flows down into the Chicago Carbon Exchange project that is run by Obama and Gore cronies who stand to make millions off of this problem as they become “The Lords of Carbon”. Many articles have been written about Gore’s lifestyle and its huge energy footprint.

    Next, it needs to be said that China is getting a free pass on Carbon emissions as their stated goals seem to take them out to 2060 while everyone else seems to be establishing goals partially in place by 2030 and fully in place by 2050. This will give China a big leg up in the domination of world economies. China pollution continues to rise while the US pollution rate has decreased for the same number of years that China’s pollution has increased. Currently China puts out double the carbon emissions of the USA. Some of the other countries that supposedly lack financial resources such as India, Pakistan, do not lack financial resources, they actually are placing more value on fighter jets and militarism while expecting others to fund their climate change efforts.

    Next, I am personally against this NATO climate change fund for a number of reasons. First, Pakistan and many other of these affected countries are enjoying many of the same products we and China enjoy, and therefore they are complicit in the overall problem at the consumption end of the equation. Second, until this year, China has been exporting cheap coal fire technology to build power plants in these countries who freely accept the Chinese doing this – and China has raked in billions in sales as well as the all important soft power – and these supposedly innocent climate stricken countries have been complicit in all of it. They knew the electric plants they were purchasing were polluters and did nothing, now they want funds from us. Third, some of these countries are very anti-USA. Its just another way of funneling money into corrupt authoritarian and theocratic governments that turn around and call us Satan.

    Here are the top ten green house gas emitters by rank by country”, source is

    Top 10 Countries with the Highest Greenhouse Gas Emissions (in million metric tons, 2019 data):* (notice 6 of 10 are not USA friendly)

    China — 9,877
    United States — 4,745
    India — 2,310
    Russia — 1,640
    Japan — 1,056
    Germany — 644
    South Korea — 586
    Iran — 583
    Canada — 571
    Saudi Arabia — 495

    Even way back in 2014, China was way worse than the USA in carbon emissions and green house gases according to EPA data. China just isn’t “one of the top major polluters, they are THE TOP major polluter. And this has been a trend for at least 15-20 years, and they get away with it as “a developing nation”. See the data below:

    Pie chart that shows country share of greenhouse gas emission. Source

    30% comes from China, 15% from the United States, 9% from the EU-28, 7% from India, 5% from the Russian Federation, 4% from Japan, and 30% from other countries.
    Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2017). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017.

    China again, has found a way to weaponize a sad human condition, this time the weapon is poverty. The UN needs to update its formula for when a country is considered “Developed”. China has a space station and many satellites and missions to space, world manufacturing hub, soon to have the most naval ships, recently sent a hypersonic missile around the globe and landed it 18 miles from its targeted landing point, most advanced rail transport system, military industrial complex selling jets to foreign countries, second largest world economy only $5T behind the USA economy, extensive loans to other countries for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) BUT, they also have much poverty, like about 600-800 million people at various levels of poverty (even though last year, 2021, Xi announced they eliminated all absolute poverty) – which seems to be the factor that keeps them in the “Developing Nation” status. And they like it this way! They are using poverty, and the UN to overtake the USA, and they like it that way. My feeling is they stay in this status because they are buying it from those that determine their status classifications.

  6. Tom

    Just hot off of the press Larry, the 2022 DoD Pentagon Report on Chinese Military Development. Two paragraphs from this report that should be concerning to all. And it should be looked at by the UN when they determine China to be a “Developing Nation”. The report which you can read at seems to describe a very well developed nation that is currently engaged in developing a new world order that clearly favors itself and will be subject to the whims of CCP leadership:

    “In addition to the development of the PLA’s conventional capabilities, the PRC has continued to accelerate the modernization, diversification, and expansion of its nuclear forces. The PRC has stated its ambition to strengthen its “strategic deterrent,” while being reluctant to discuss the PLA’s developing nuclear, space, and cyberspace capabilities, negatively impacting global strategic stability—an area of increasing global concern.

    As the PRC seeks to achieve “national rejuvenation” by its centenary in 2049, this report highlights Beijing’s ambition to reform the prevailing international rules-based system. This objective requires an external environment supportive of the PRC’s strategic goals defined under the concept of a “community of common destiny,” led by Xi Jinping’s initiatives such as the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative.”

  7. Rat Wrangler

    The US receives about 16.8% of China’s total global exports, so perhaps we should be assigned 16.8% of China’s carbon footprint. If every nation that imports more from China than it exports is considered partially responsible for their use of polluting coal, they might be able to reduce their own carbon footprints on paper simply by ending all imports of manufactured items from China.

  8. Frank stetson

    But wait, there’s more. One of the greatest polluters in the world is ocean transport. There are virtually no controls on these vessels, and they polluted will.

    We could reduce ocean transport pollution considerably by just getting their products one week later from China, and slowing down the boats. Of course, there’s more comprehensive Waze, but it’s bad enough I just slowing down the boats with you improvement.

    • Frank stetson

      I think the number is about 3% of all man-made transmissions from Ocean transport. That’s equivalent to quite a few countries.

      Point is in the pollution game there’s a lot of low hanging fruit with some solutions being as easy as “have a little patience in getting your product.”

  9. Sam

    I want a huuuuuge carbon footprint. Screw global warming. It’s all bullshit

  10. Bibfy

    God loves a guy who loves to shit where he eats and then brags about it.

    Pollute more Sam, continue to greedily consume your children’s future environment. May all your Springs be silent.

    • Wylie

      I love to pollute. God has designed natural to take care of it