You are conflating CO2 and all forms of pollution.

But, also remember that a lot of pollution in China subventions our life-style in the west.

If someone is able to build factories and produce basically any piece of plastic, electronic device or clothing we use, far cheaper than over here, there’s bound to be trade-offs.

These trade-offs concern human rights and the environment.

If we were to, say, halve our consumption of “stuff”, this would have a massive effect on pollution in China.

(But what about the holy growth?! :))

There's no inevitability about economic growth in China and reduction in human rights. That's entirely a political decision. By themselves, economic growth and increasing standards of living provide more opportunities and freedoms.

Environmental impact is trickier, less economically developed nations struggle to contain the environmental impacts of growth due to the costs involved.

There’s no denying they have taken it upon themselves.

I see it as a highly conscious longish term strategy for them, as now they have become a player to count on.

I also believe it’s been stupidly greedy, not to mention short sighted, of us (or “the market”) in the west.

You seem to be implying that moral and ethical considerations doesn’t really exist in our economy, which is exactly what I’m sorta’ trying to get across in my point.

Edit: I wasn’t referring to Chinas growth, I was actually thinking about BNP etc “over here”. And while expanding on the topic - using BNP as a sole metric of success is just such a bad idea.

Canada is a big place and it is really cold half the time. Cut yourself some slack.

Unless you are commuting really far every day by yourself by car, that is a ridiculous norm.

Every country has excuses. Russia is cold. Brazil is poor, can't afford paying for clean energy. China is making everybody's stuff.

Canada's emissions don't come from its empty land. Half of its electricity comes from hydro power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada), which is used for heating in a lot of houses. Canada has among the world's worst CO2/capita emissions because of its oil sector, and because most Canadians have big houses, big cars (2+ per family), high consumption, and frequent air travel.

Energy use and pollution are not exactly correlated. Neither is carbon footprint and pollution, these are all separate things that have to be managed almost separately.

you do realize that per capita measurements benefit China, and a few other countries, immensely because a good portion of their population does not participate in their new economy.

So in China it is considered less than 60% live in urban areas whereas in the US that number is just over 80%. So a better method of impact determination would be, how much is that portion contributing to the pollution of the country.

So always question per capita measurements with large segments of the population in a country don't truly participate.

Finally, only a free press and scientific society can confirm the truth

At least in the US, per capita environmental impact is lower urban than rural. So urbanization is not a great proxy for environmental impact.

This article is pretty strong evidence we don't have that great a handle on how much China pollutes.

The West is not exactly perfect.

https://spiegel.de/international/europe/anger-rises-in-italy...

... For instance.

Is perfection the only relevant standard? The west has made massive strides in environmental protection over the last 50 years.

https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos

It was just an expression meaning "we don't have that great a handle" either on how much Western countries actually pollute.

As proven in the examples mentioned in subsequent comments.

It's impossible to say without some type of dedicated study focused specifically on the question, but my sense is that those examples are rather extraordinary exceptions, and not the rule.

Color me unsurprised that the Mafia is breaking laws; there are also vanishingly few organizations like the Mafia in the developed West.

Or Dieselgate. Or how the authorities of the countries lobbied to keep emissions tests which they knew were easy to fool:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-franc...

When carmakers means employment for voters and tax income, it seems obvious governments will let them get away with crap, their motivation is to remain in power and that is easier when the voters are happily employed: https://qz.com/1045619/germanys-diesel-scandal-shines-a-ligh...

It isn’t binary.