Maggie's Farm

There is no reasonable scientific debate as to whether the Earth is warming. The scientific confidence is based on multiple, independent observations which show a warming trend; including data from surface stations, ocean heat content, cryosphere, and satellites. The trend is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

As $382 million is less than 0.02% of $2 trillion, even if one were to accept DOGE's assertions unskeptically, the claimed fraud does not explain the deficit.


There is waste and fraud in any human endeavor. That's not news.

DOGE has a record of spreading misinformation, so it would behoove one to be skeptical of their claims. Meanwhile, DOGE has lowered their sights from $2 trillion in savings to less than a tenth of that. When all is said and done, when it comes to actually identifying waste and fraud, much of the savings will probably prove illusory.

Assistant Village Idiot: The environmental pollution comes from China to a staggering degree.

Chinese per capita emissions are considerably less than the United States (which is relevant, assuming you think people have an equal right to the world's shared resources). Furthermore, China also has lower cumulative emissions (which is the relevant factor for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect). That doesn't mean China shouldn't further restrain their emissions, but it is the baseline from which they view the issue.

Lord Heathen: Don't you have one billion, 430 million mouths to feed?

Chinese imports of food have increased substantially over the last twenty years, mostly due to the rise in living standards. But only about 17% of China’s food imports come from the United States, less than Brazil at 23%. Other producer countries have been making inroads into America’s market share since the last time Trump was president.

Meanwhile, China holds $759 billion in U.S. securities, which they could unload at any time, sending an earthquake through the bond market. Even Japan has been selling U.S. securities. The irrational nature of the U.S. may mean it is no longer the economic haven it once was.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic of Chinese greenhouse emissions though.

Assistant Village Idiot (quoting): "There are a billion and a half people in China. And every man-jack of them wants a Buick."

That's exactly right! Given that all people have the right to the fruits of industrialization and a fair share of shared resources, then saying, "We've got ours, but you have to do without," is not a viable or just position. China seems intent on following the path of the West, which is to burn now to develop the ability to go green later. As you indicate, that is not sustainable. The 'trick' will be to enable continued economic development while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Assistant Village Idiot: Per capita is the most important number NOW, when talking about the future of the climate?

As far as global warming, total cumulative global emissions are the material factor.

Assistant Village Idiot: As usual, you shift the argument a few steps away to ground you like better.

The original topic was the scientific finding of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. You took the step to talk about China's emissions, which is fine.