The majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.

So what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.

I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China?

Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?

China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.

It is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.

Per captia data is not useful because they have so many people who live rural lives without tech. Their urban class was doing well and causing a ton of pollution just like the US does. They then scaled up even more in the least emission efficient ways complete disregard for the damage it would do.

Would not have done so yet you mean.

The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.

You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.

Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration.

It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before.

Blaming China here is disingenious.

Give me the argument why China should be able to hockey stick their emissions graph after 2014 when the world had their climate accords. Now also apply that logic to india and africa.

Sorry, no.

What I'm saying is that we'd pass the point of no return independently of what China did, or India, or Africa. The countries that started emitting CO₂ earlier went on emitting, and that's enough for us to pass the point of no return. Everyone has to stop emitting CO₂. China's behaviour just changed the date a bit.

Changed the date both directions, I'd say — China's building all those coal plants shifted the date in one direction, and China's building all those solar panels shifted the date in the other. The world's biggest change for good is IMHO the Chinese solar panels.

yeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor

At the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.

Comulative CO2 emissions tell a different story.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions

emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.

What does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"?

The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.

Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions.

If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.

So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear?

I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.

So you're fine for every country to industrialize in the cheapest dirtiest way and destroy the world because other its "unfair". No one is saying they cant industrialize, only that they have to be cautious about their emissions and make an attempt to reduce them. For example, instead of operating a steel mill from the 60s and building a new one copying the old design use a new design that has less emissions.

Yes that is for the best. Countries like India and China are moving away from fossil fuels faster than previous developed countries did. Still not enough but surely something.

You can say that but fossil fuels are still a huge part of their energy grid and energy generation is only one part of industrializing. Even if they did it 100% renewably which they arent it would still be devastating to the world.

It doesnt matter if its right or not they will act in their own interest. But its pretty dumb that we sit around in the west arguing about the emissions from a few gas turbines when china is deploying 60 coal plants a year and burning rubbish.