There are actually industries which China dominates where the cost of energy is the main driving factor, like aluminium production. The thing is that as far as anyone can tell it makes zero economic sense for that to be made in China in such a polluting way - the only way that they could undercut countries with cheap green electricity to the extent they do is through massive Chinese government subsidies.

>tons of transport fuel for lots of driving, and high heating/cooling costs due to detached, poorly insulated buildings.

We have fixes for these don't we? Electric cars + solar panels could go a long way towards reducing this emissions source. I wonder if the government just aggressively subsidies solar + electric so much so that alternatives go out of business that we might just accelerate the solution to this problem.

The core issue is that people want the suburban lifestyle and they will not downgrade unless the government incentivizes them to or they are forced to due to climate disaster at their doorstep.

We need to drastically scale up battery production to make this happen on a quick enough time scale. Solar panel production is scaling at roughly the appropriate speed, but for cars we will need some people to lessen their driving needs if we want to keep pace with climate goals that are compatible with 1.5C of warming.

Which leads to my second point. I'm not convinced that as many people want the suburban lifestyle as are forced into it. My preference would be to have a non-suburban lifestyle, but it has been banned in most of the US. Our entire legal, tax, and governmental infrastructure is set up to prioritize and prefer suburbia, and it's been that way since WW2. My evidence that more people want alternatives to suburban lifestyles is that suburbia has to legislate its existence. Single family home owners fight super hard against allowing row houses or apartments, and that's the main impediment to their creation, not market forces.

An alternative to scaling battery production for cars is to electrify the highway system so that cars don't need huge batteries to go long distances. A side-benefit of that is it shifts energy use from overnight charging to daytime charging (since that's mostly when people drive around), which would be more compatible energy availability if we convert over to mostly-solar.

> The stuff we buy from China doesn't take that much energy to create compared to, say, driving 10 miles to the grocery store a few times a week.

Transporting the said item overseas, through customs, driven on a truck and a UPS van to my home is less than uhhh what?? Why are we comparing driving 10 miles to grocery store a few times a week?

If you want to objectively compare, you need to analyze kWh of energy spent in the entire supply chain per unit of production whether it is a USB cable from China or a tea pot from a local ceramic shop.

The biggest source of US emissions is driving. About a third. Transporting goods is a tiny tiny fraction of that, as overall transportation emissions account for only slightly more than that.

Driving really is the worst possible thing to do, and we have enshrined mandatory car use in the way that we have laid out our roads, where we allow housing and jobs to be placed, and by banning placement of daily needs next to homes.

EU emissions per capita are a fraction of US emissions, ans most of that comes from how we force people to live in the US.