2024 Was the First Year Above 1.5C of Global Warming, Scientists Say (msn.com) 142
Scientists said the world just reached a grim milestone: the first full year where global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial times. Reuters reports: The milestone was confirmed by the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), which said climate change is pushing the planet's temperature to levels never before experienced by modern humans. "The trajectory is just incredible," C3S director Carlo Buontempo told Reuters, describing how every month in 2024 was the warmest or second-warmest for that month since records began.
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said. Last year was the world's hottest since records began, and each of the past ten years was among the ten warmest on record. Britain's Met Office confirmed 2024's likely breach of 1.5C, while estimating a slightly lower average temperature of 1.53C for the year. U.S. scientists will also publish their 2024 climate data on Friday.
Governments promised under the 2015 Paris Agreement to try to prevent average temperatures exceeding 1.5C, to avoid more severe and costly climate disasters. The first year above 1.5C does not breach that target, which measures the longer-term average temperature. Buontempo said rising greenhouse gas emissions meant the world was on track to soon also blow past the Paris goal - but that it was not too late for countries to rapidly cut emissions to avoid warming rising further to disastrous levels. "It's not a done deal. We have the power to change the trajectory from now on," Buontempo said.
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said. Last year was the world's hottest since records began, and each of the past ten years was among the ten warmest on record. Britain's Met Office confirmed 2024's likely breach of 1.5C, while estimating a slightly lower average temperature of 1.53C for the year. U.S. scientists will also publish their 2024 climate data on Friday.
Governments promised under the 2015 Paris Agreement to try to prevent average temperatures exceeding 1.5C, to avoid more severe and costly climate disasters. The first year above 1.5C does not breach that target, which measures the longer-term average temperature. Buontempo said rising greenhouse gas emissions meant the world was on track to soon also blow past the Paris goal - but that it was not too late for countries to rapidly cut emissions to avoid warming rising further to disastrous levels. "It's not a done deal. We have the power to change the trajectory from now on," Buontempo said.
Who cares (Score:5, Funny)
We're buying Greenland. We don't need the continental US low lying lands anyway we can live on Greenland which is the size of 13 Floridas without alligators, pythons, and Florida mans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you think you can, say, do reasonable farming on Greenland? Well, you will be able to. In 10'000 years or so. It is a bit more than just a question of temperature.
Ah, human stupidity. Alive and thriving. Thanks for reminding me.
Incidentally, after what the convicted criminal and certified moron just said, there is zero chance of Greenland being for sale in the next few decades.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Incidentally, after what the convicted criminal and certified moron just said, there is zero chance of Greenland being for sale in the next few decades.
That isn't true. The plan I've seen rumored around is to offer each of Greenland's 57,000 citizens $1 million each. That's an offer of $1 million cash to every person. A family of 4 would get $4 million cash. Sorry but there's no way a majority of Greenlanders would turn down $1 million in cash. That would cost the US $57 billion. And throw in another $3 billion to build some recreation centers, roads, or something. So that's $60 billion. That's a mere 1% of our federal budget (annual federal budget is $6,5
Re: (Score:1)
I hope nobody in Greenland would be silly enough to expect Trump to actually pay his bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Things are not at all that clear. Also, such an offer may well be criminal to accept.
Pray to the great God Mammon all you like, but reality is not that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like democracy to me?
As for being criminal for Greenlanders to sell Greenland to the US, I'm sure the US Supreme Court would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Greenlanders" can not sell Greenland to the USA.
Greenland is part of Denmark. Only Denmark can sell it.
And a Greenlander with literally free healthcare in a nation with multiple parties where he actually can vote, is not selling his land for a million. To be unable to vote properly, a broken leg will cost 1/4 of a million and as soon as something bad happens with his house: the insurance has an excuse not to pay.
What is next, the new owners remove the internet from a country that has the fastest and on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fastest way to make a million dollars worthless is to give everyone else a million dollars too. And take away all property rights in exchange, then slap a tax on moving out of "state", it's all such a stupid joke, yet the moment Trump says something moronic there is no end to the attempts to normalize it.
Trump has literally lost his mind, he needs to be institutionalized, yet here we are talking about how crazy talk is perfectly reasonable, in fact it's about to happen!
Re: (Score:2)
And SCOTUS would definitely decide they have jurisdiction over international law.
"Sounds like democracy to me?"
A sovereign nation is governed by its constitution, not by "democracy". A sovereign nation is not property that can be sold by the voters.
But then, you think the SCOTUS rules over citizens of other nations, explaining anything is wasted on you.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you think the US Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over Hawaii or Texas? Is Texas still part of Mexico?
Re: (Score:2)
such an offer may well be criminal to accept.
Based on what? My understanding is that the Danish government wouldn't oppose the Greenlanders holding a referendum and choosing to go their own way.
Re: (Score:2)
A million dollars is nothing. That barely gets you a house in most of Australia.
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Houses in the US are typically cheap crap.
Re: (Score:2)
offer each of Greenland's 57,000 citizens $1 million each.
The Economist has an article [economist.com] showing that Greenland would be a bargain even at several times that price.
Greenland has more rare earth deposits than anywhere else but China. Huge stocks of fish in territorial waters. Strategic location. Etc.
Greenlanders will likely accept the deal. That's a lot of money for a struggling family, and there are advantages to American citizenship.
The only way to stop it is to prohibit a referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably can't have a referendum on giving up sovereignty of their country. Most places prohibit it, to stop richer countries doing this kind of thing.
The EU would certainly never allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why not. There was a referendum in Gibraltar about becoming part of Spain, which the EU seemed happy with. Spain wasn't very happy with the result, but that's a different matter.
Now, the idea of paying people to vote a particular way in a referendum, that might be an issue - but not the referendum itself.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an advisory referendum with a certain outcome, and the EU stood to gain.
Re: (Score:2)
the idea of paying people to vote a particular way in a referendum, that might be an issue
Nope, because they are not paid for their vote.
If the referendum is approved, everyone gets the money, regardless of how each individual voted.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nope, because they are not paid for their vote."
Yes, even worse. No one gets paid until the vote turns out my way!
"If the referendum is approved, everyone gets the money, regardless of how each individual voted."
Right, the Trump way! LOL
If the referendum is approved, no one gets the money. That's how the Trump world works. Go back to Shanghai, Bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill-
I do not normally agree with your viewpoint(s), and often find myself with the opinion that your "take" on many situations seems tainted with political bias. This is one of several instances where (in my opinion) you drill straight to a logical assessment of referendum terms versus buying votes.
Here is the part that makes it clear that there is no vote buying:
"If the referendum is approved, everyone gets the money, regardless of how each individual voted."
This is very similar to other situations like v
Re: (Score:2)
That should be-
"straight to a logical assessment: referendum terms versus buying votes"
The way it was written broke my own brain trying to read that as a complete thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they can just vote for the Sell Greenland to the USA in Return for a Million Bucks for Everyone Party during the next election.
Some form of separation from the EU would naturally be involved in Greenland joining the Great North American Empire of Trumpsylvania.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Greenland, being a part of Denmark, _is_ part of the EU.
But being part of Europe, Greenland remembers what fascism looks like and so doesn't want any part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's complicated! [wikipedia.org]
Although Greenland withdrew from the European Communities in 1985, the autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark remains associated with the European Union, being one of the overseas countries and territories of the EU [wikipedia.org]. The relationship with the EU means that all Danish citizens residing in Greenland are EU citizens. This allows Greenlanders to move and reside freely within the EU. This contrasts with Danish citizens living in the Faroe Islands who are excluded from EU citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
"Greenlanders will likely accept the deal. That's a lot of money for a struggling family, and there are advantages to American citizenship."
It's not when every other struggling family also has a million dollars, and who says they get American citizenship? Or they would get to keep any of it.
No one confuses you, ShanghaiBill, of being stupid enough to believe any of that shit. You're a self-servicing liar as we've all known for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - I don't think Trump would really do it. However if the US wants Greenland we get it. After all the EU is dependent on US nat gas and security via NATO. We have you all by the short ones.
The reality of Greenland though and Trump's people will explain this to him his the population there is a very poor. It would be a huge welfare burden. In the meantime we get to do whatever we want there anyway from a military / force projection perspective. Denmark has always and will for security reasons continu
Re: (Score:2)
In sort either the Trump knows better already or he will soon because his advisors certainly do, but he will continue to bluster about it because it is a great way to distract the chattering classes while he and his people implement other agenda items.
This. One of Trump's favorite tactics is to say crazy shit in order to distract us into talking about it, while he works on other things that get no mention. Look at the lies about Haitian immigrants eating dogs, babies being killed after they're born, and so on. "Here, look at this monkey! Look at this silly monkey!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's not when every other struggling family also has a million dollars
They don't have to stay in Greenland.
A family of four can take their $4M and buy a very nice house in Hawaii.
and who says they get American citizenship?
That's how American annexations have worked in the past.
When America acquired French Louisiana, including the city of New Orleans, the residents became U.S. citizens.
When America acquired California, Arizona, New Mexico, and more from Mexico, the residents became U.S. citizens.
Why wouldn't Greenlanders become U.S. citizens? There's no reason to deny them citizenship, especially when they're all milli
Re: (Score:2)
What about places like the Philippines? Being an American territory can be a pretty shitty situation, even with citizenship like Puerto Rico which doesn't even have a functional electric grid.
Re: (Score:2)
What about places like the Philippines?
The Philippines was never annexed. The openly stated intention from the beginning was a transition to independence.
Re: (Score:2)
They were ceded to the USA,
Cede, to giveaway. Annex, to take. Not much difference except who initializes the transaction.
Perhaps the experience of the various native tribes of America would be better examples, lots of lands annexed under treaties that were usually broken. Could the Inuit of Greenland expect a different outcome from a government that routinely breaks treaties
Re: (Score:1)
Greenland has some 100 meters of ice on top of it.
No one is going to set up a mining operations there - soonish.
And I doubt there are any reliable facts about what minerals you can^H^H^H could mine there.
Minerals [Re:Who cares] (Score:2)
Greenland has some 100 meters of ice on top of it. No one is going to set up a mining operations there - soonish.
100 meters subsurface is really no big deal for mining. Some mines are kilometers deep.
And I doubt there are any reliable facts about what minerals you can^H^H^H could mine there.
See https://www.npr.org/2019/11/24... [npr.org]
I think rare earths are the ones of interest at the moment, although "rare earths" are not actually particularly rare. But, right now China dominates rare earth mining, so DT may be looking to find an alternative source after he annoys China enough that they embargo exporting them.
other resources: https://acfequityresearch.com/... [acfequityresearch.com] https://www.azomining.com/Arti... [azomining.com] https://www.greenmi [greenmin.gl]
Re: (Score:3)
Greenland has some 100 meters of ice on top of it.
About 20% of Greenland is not covered by permanent ice.
20% of Greenland is the area of California.
No one is going to set up a mining operations there
There are several mines already operating in Greenland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offer them a billion each and then don't pay. Isn't that how it's always done anyway? Have Steve Bannon set up a GoFundMe, then pardon him for the fraud.
And besides, didn't we trade that shithole country Puerto Rico for it?
"That isn't true."
Sure it's not, a sovereign nation is nothing more than a piece of real estate, right? Why not just annex it, Putin-style? Why not promise a million to each citizen and then impose a million dollar tax on them? Why even bother disguising your intent to steal it, it's
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
See that's where trump messed up. Should've just got the dead to vote for him instead. Much cheaper!
Re: (Score:3)
See that's where trump messed up. Should've just got the dead to vote for him instead. Much cheaper!
That is exactly what Republicans [newsweek.com] did [newsweek.com] in the 2020 [8newsnow.com] election [nbcnews.com], and he still lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you paying for all the moving vans?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-refundable deposit for a mover is $1 million.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
I thought this was a joke but other people are taking it seriously.
You aren't getting Greenland, for the record.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a joke, this is what MAGA has become. Unbridled greed, bigotry and idiocracy.
What's going on is not about Greenland. The fascists have won, they do not believe they will ever relinquish power again. In their mind, they are entering a phase where the rich and powerful divide up the world. What we are seeing is Trump claiming "dibs" on what he's gonna take while Putin and other dictators take theirs. It's about looting the entire world.
Trump hasn't laid claim to just Greenland, in the same breath he laid claim to Canada, Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal. It's not going to stop, it's another round of Hitler and Stalin carving up Europe, only on a global scale rather than a regional one.
Arguing about a million dollars to a Greenlander is just normalizing planned crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right. The EU does have powerful military forces, and nukes, so...
I think Trump is preparing to withdraw from NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Mount McKinley is within the US so the US can administratively name it. International waters are typically named by groups like the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). To effectively change the Gulf of Mexico, one would need to convince the UNGEGN, which would likely start by convincing the nations who border on this body of water (US, Mexico, Cuba?) to change it.
Maybe we can have the Atlantic and Pacific be the West American Ocean and the East American Ocean! Other
Re: (Score:2)
It's a reasonable assessment to those with civic and historical literacy, only an absurd one to clueless conservatives who are still in denial about what they've been supporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Buying LOL It's already ours! Just like the Gulf of America and the Panama Canal!
Re: (Score:1)
So the temperature was higher in 1849. People must have been smoking too much rope back then.
Congratulations on posting the first relevant comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say that, it's not like they had accurate measurements then.
Modern Humans? (Score:1)
"European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), which said climate change is pushing the planet's temperature to levels never before experienced by modern humans. "The trajectory is just incredible," C3S director Carlo Buontempo told Reuters, describing how every month in 2024 was the warmest or second-warmest for that month since records began.
Perhaps the wording could have been a bit better?
Re: (Score:2)
Thread is unreadable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a pretty arbitrary timeframe. (Score:2)
A cynical person might think it's because it was too warm back then for people to make political hay of it now. Harder to get people worried about an increase of less than a half of a degree.
Re: (Score:3)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
When did they start using coal to power steam engines in a big way?
Graphs says it all ... (Score:5, Informative)
We are, supposedly, nerds on this site ...
Look at the graphs in this BBC article [bbc.com].
There is a clear trend towards warming over the pre-industrial level.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand they are like ... just messing with the baseline numbers maaannn...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that for some people, the survival of their flimsy ill-informed worldview depends on them not understanding that graph.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, everything bad is caused by Joe Biden, The Real Donald said so. He also declares the Democratic Party is "Giddy" because he's not doing x, just before he promises (only promises, mind you) to do x.
Every time the GOP gets power, their silence is deafening. They've got much to say when someone else is making choices and total silence when it's their job.
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of evidence is going to convince an idiot in an idiot-bubble.
It's all a conspiracy! Trump said so on "Truth Social", which is doublespeak for "Antisocial Misinformation".
What a dystopia we live in.
Re: Meanwhile in Los Angeles (Score:1, Informative)
"Trump is badman evil guy, I heard it on social media and the TV agrees."
Your idiot bubble is tired and played out. Get a new one.
Re: Meanwhile in Los Angeles (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think I post anon and don't say anything where I work?
Because you're a coward who doesn't have the conviction to stand by your words. If you're in science then you are the problem and should choose another profession.
Re: (Score:1)
By the way, the numbers in TFS are collected by exactly the same ideologically aligned bunch of sick people so it's hard not to doubt the methodology they used. It would take hours for common citizens to validate the numbers by themselves. In short , those numbers are easily manipulable without anybody noticing and the ones who would be able to validate them and find discrepancies would simply be called oil shills and cancelled.
Oooh, and now a comment that's not only on topic but right-headed...
What next?
How big a conspiracy [Re:Meanwhile in Los Angeles] (Score:2)
By the way, the numbers in TFS are collected by exactly the same ideologically aligned bunch of sick people so it's hard not to doubt the methodology they used.
Just a reminder that climate researchers working at a dozen institutions on four continents all show the warming trend. The core of science is that measurements can be replicated, and these are. So, if it's all a conspiracy of "ideologically aligned sick people" to fake data, how big a conspiracy are you are proposing? A few hundred scientists? A thousand?
Keeping in mind that a scientist who could come up with an credible and testable theory that shows greenhouse effect is not producing warming would inst
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that it was also independently corroborated by by ExxonMobil's in-house scientists...IIRC there was also an independent effort funded by a big American conservative think-tank in the 2000s that found a close match to the scientific consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we stopped trying to convince climate sceptics that change is real, they have been coming up with increasingly silly conspiracy theories. I see we have reached "cut the firefighting budget to push their agenda", as if it's going to have any meaningful impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from US but I heard on the news that it's normal not to have water during those fires because they cut off the power to avoid lighting up more fires. Seriously? No emergency autonomous systems for the water utility?
Re: (Score:2)
You think power is required for water? Have you ever even experienced a power outage? How old are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Listen buddy, that's what the US president explained to us, they are working on bringing in generators so they can restore the water supply. So, there was no emergency circuits nor any emergency generators already in place nor any tanks in place which could provide water simply by gravity. So, no solution was planned in advance to supply water in case of such fire and they are still working to bring in generators to restore the power.
See for yourself here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Localized power outages....generally no, not a problem.
But if the power outage hits where the city water pumping stations are....yes, that can cause water problems if pumps shut down.
Water doesn't magically pump itself out and keep the pressure up to safe levels by itself....at least now where I live (have lived).
I'm getting pretty old...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I live next to a pumping station on a high ground in a 3 million people city. There is a very huge underground tank and a big building full of diesel power generators they start once a month to test/maintain them. There are several such stations in my city located on high grounds and they all have emergency diesel power generators.
Having dams to raise the water level at the source helps too but California destroyed at least 3 of their dams so the salmons can get true. They should have asked us for adv
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he has been dependent on well water that needs power to pump it up.
Re: (Score:1)
And don't forget that they spent the money on DEI instead! Wildfires are caused by libs loving brown people too much!
There is nothing that isn't made just a little bit better by adding racism, so says Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
First year since when?
Since the last interglacial period, which was 125,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
This is simply incorrect. According to Copernicus' own press release, the time period in question is 1979-2024:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
This is what "first full year on record" refers to.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, climate is defined as the average weather over a 30 year period.
That's the difference in average weather compared to a certain reference period of 30 years. Currently, the time period from 1980-2010 is widely used as reference.
That's a completely different question, and it has nothing to do with
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are simply plain wrong. There is nothing to "confuse" or "disentangle" here.
We are discussing an article stating that 2024 was the warmest year "since records began".
Somebody asks what "since records began" means in this context. This question is valid and pertinent. It also has just a single correct answer, and it has nothing to do with isotopes, ice ages or whatever happened in 1736 in Mannheim, Germany.
The answer, as I pointed out and linked to, is found expressly in the original press release
Re: (Score:2)
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said.
Re: (Score:2)
False and intentionally dishonest.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, facts are ideological propaganda. The only truth is political allegiance.
Re: (Score:1)
Provide the facts then. What is the time period referenced by "first full year on record"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the OP's OWN LINK provided records back to 1940, so we already know 1979 was a lie.
But sure, because the article didn't give a specific year defining "on record" you must be right. We cannot simply assume that "on record" might mean something like "for any year for which we have records". I mean, the mere use of the term "on record" must be a conspiracy to hide the truth, right?
Will we ever find anything to stupid even for MAGAts?
Re: (Score:2)
Since humans started pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, that's approximately correct. ISTR that it was "since the start of the industrial revolution". That wasn't the real start, since we *started* altering the climate by clearing forests and building rice paddies (i.e. swamps that emit methane), but that was the start of the big increase in the use of fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
And of course, the negative effects of global warming start before 1.5 degrees, which is just a number picked for the Paris Agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual time period for which "first year" applies, however, is only betwen 1979 and 2024, i.e., a 45-year interval. This is clearly stated in Copernicus' own press release, upon which the reporting in the global press is based:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
The reference period for the average now exceeded by 1.5 degrees has been set as 1991-2020.
The underlying dataset, starting 1979, upon which many climate-related news stories have been based over the last few years is called "ERA5". Interestingly,
Re:Since when, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
According to NASA, the raising of global temperature has occurred since at least 1880, The largest part has occurred since 1975. But I just repeated the article and summary above, that states the following:
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a liar.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
This is part of their "press release", it provides data back to 1940.
"The underlying dataset..."
The underlying dataset is not all records in human existence.
"Interestingly, ERA5 is not simply raw measurements but a post-processed "re-analysis" combining measurements and a climate model:"
Wow, that sure is interesting! Must be a conspiracy! Imagine that data might not merely be "raw measurements". Imagine that a "climate model" might be involved!
"Make of this
Re: (Score:2)
Which arbitrary point in history are we stopping our comparison for ideological propaganda purposes this time?
I pick the arbitrary point where civilization started and humans started to become dependent on the planet's ecosystem. Call me a racist but I don't give a fuck about dinosaurs. They are nothing but dumb scaley and feathered cannibals. Make the human race great again. Homosapien lives matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're neglecting "the law of the minimum". Plants growing in CO2 enriched environments have weaker support fibers and less protein. They *do* grow faster (if they get enough water) but they grow tall and spindly and prone to breaking down as the get larger. Bamboo should do super well, but don't expect great things of oak, ash, and thorn.
Re: (Score:2)
We exceeded maximum CO2 concentration plants can benefit from a decade or two ago. CO2 increase beyond that has no further effect on plant respiration. Also CO2 is plant junk food, it causes decreased crop nutrition, on top of all the other global-warming-related issues that can negatively affect crop growth.
Plants are harmed by droughts, floods, wildfires and other semi-natural disasters far more than they benefit from having junk food available to an unusable excess.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "efforts outside China" could be to stop outsourcing all of our production there.
It's kind of silly to blame China for the CO2 emissions when a good chunk of it is being produced to make the stuff the rest of the world buys.
If the rest of the world on-shored back all the factories, China's emissions would go down pretty quick, and it really wouldn't be virtue signaling. I doubt it'll happen any time soon, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The US' emissions alone are about half that of China's overall, and that's with a much smaller population. That's not virtue-signaling.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe an image of LA currently being on fire or the recent hurricane damage to the US southeast would do.