I think the most interesting datapoint to have come from global covid lockdowns is just how little the world is contributing to greenhouse gases compared to china.
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/128753852226676736...
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/128753852226676736...
Doesn't that describe most pseudoscience/conspiracy posts though? They rarely make up data outright, but instead they cherrypick data that fits their theory. This is why I asked if this theory was already a thing before the pandemic. If it's really the case that China (or any other major emitter) is underreporting their emissions, you'd think that someone at a reputable institution would have raised the alarm about the inconsistency in the past two decades. The lack of this is a reason to doubt the validity of this, at least to a casual observer.
With regards to actual explanations, the twitter thread provides many:
* chinese new year
* sanctions/tariffs
* different style of lockdown by china vs the US
Clearly they liked fewer complaints about environmental concerns because it wasn’t happening where the citizens could see it. In principal they were smart enough to understand the concept of outsourcing pain.
> That’s because western leaders were more than happy to let China manufacture things ‘over there’ so we could wash our hands clean of the environmental damage
Just saying that's not the driver. Not even close. Demand for cheap goods was the driver for the West and the fact that Chinese policies teed up super cheap supply via their policies is the story.
So I don't think your comment isn't accurate. But it would be accurate if you said our western leaders were more than happy to keep the flow of cheap goods going because it was a favorable arrangement and it had a nice side effect of not having to deal with environmental cleanup or pushback.
If the cost of goods was the same in the west, the west would surely deal with environmental issues in exchange for the jobs and tax revenue.