Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

[A_Gupta]

The question to me is - has decarbonization a momentum of its own that will not be derailed by the US deregulation of greenhouse gases? Yes, it will mean that China owns all those technologies to the extent India and the EU do not step up to the plate, and is sad for the US's future. But humanity and the globe overall are more important.

E.g., for both China and India energy independence alone gives an incentive to renewable energy, especially if the US gets the Western Hemisphere and Western Asia under its thumb, and if Russia indeed changes course and goes with the US, as is rumored it might do ( viewtopic.php?p=2672106#p2672106 ). It would mean American control of world petroleum, and thus a threat to each of the nations.

[Cyrano]

[Vayutuvan]

@Cyrano gaaru, good video. A few of my close friends used to regurgitate these same talking points.

[Jay]

This being from the right wing bari weiss's "free press" is a red flag to begin with, but I tried to watch and understand what her gripes were regarding this "climate activism" and boy she keep's jumping from one point to another point and connecting them all like a conspiracy theory, like most right wing people do. She starts of with saying that in 2010's climate activism was not a big thing and I have to stop and question her understanding. On what planet she was on where climate talk was not a big deal a decade ago?

Ultimately her main gripe seems to be that climate activism brings in a lot of activists that are also active in other sphere's like identity politics and when that clashed with her own identity as a white, straight women that is when she moved away from the climate movement.

Her examples of plastic vs glass, and how she was not even aware of CO2% in the atmosphere makes her come across as a dark bimbo. Same with her plastic example during covid. She said she was skeptical of the dakota pipeline and had her doubts in 2016, but continued with her activist" job until 2022, before moving to free press in 2022. Yeah...she's a mercenary and will sing praises of whoever gives her money.

She vehemently says that she is all in for traditional climate environment movement and its goals of conservation, protecting animals, and getting pollution out of the environment, but immediately goes on to say that fossil fuels and other modern ways have nothing to do with it...lol. She then says that climate change movement is a debbie downer, "womp womp", and she needs the positive feels to feel she is not depressed.

She does have a valid point that a many of these hard core climate activists are nihilists. If these "anti climate activists" talk about lessening pollution in our air and water that many many more will listen to them and opt their line. Just give people clean air, water without spiking their bills and no one will question with your movement is climate-doomer or climate-boomer. None of these guys are honest....scamsters of the first degree.

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile NY Times article Risks of sea-level rise have been significantly underestimated due to a widespread methodological flaw in previous studies.


--> Over 90% of peer-reviewed studies on coastal vulnerability incorrectly used "geoids" (mathematical models of Earth's gravity) as a proxy for actual sea levels. These models do not account for local variations in water height and land elevation.

--> On average, coastal sea levels were found to be 9.4 to 10.6 inches (24 to 27 cm) higher than previously modeled. In some regions of the Global South, such as Southeast Asia and the Pacific, actual sea levels could be 18 to 25 feet higher than assumed in older models.

--> The study emphasizes the urgent need for researchers to integrate direct sea-level and land-elevation measurements with geoid models to provide more accurate projections for climate adaptation and coastal planning.

[Cyrano]

Sometimes I wish all this were true and Yepp Steen's island had gone under water. Oh well...

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile: News from IIT Bombay:

During the recent visit of Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney to India in late February, the leaders underscored solutions for carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) as a key area of cooperation offering a significant opportunity for the sustainable production of energy and critical minerals.

Prime Minister Carney was accompanied by a Canadian high-level delegation that included senior ministers, provincial leaders and leading CEOs.

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay reinforced its commitment to advancing CCUS through meaningful collaborations with leading Canadian partners, including Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC).
Prof. Vikram Vishal of IIT Bombay and Mr. Erik Nickel of PTRC signed a MoU in presence of the Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe on 2nd March, 2026 in New Delhi.

Showcasing IIT Bombay's patented Direct Air Capture technology and presenting a symbolic “Maple Leaf” design carbonate salt to Prime Minister Mark Carney, that was crafted from 100% CO₂ captured from air, highlighted how science can transform climate challenges into tangible solutions.

With the support of partners across academia, industry and government, we continue to build bridges that advance innovation, sustainability and shared climate goals.

[williams]

The question to me is - has decarbonization a momentum of its own that will not be derailed by the US deregulation of greenhouse gases? Yes, it will mean that China owns all those technologies to the extent India and the EU do not step up to the plate, and is sad for the US's future. But humanity and the globe overall are more important.

E.g., for both China and India energy independence alone gives an incentive to renewable energy, especially if the US gets the Western Hemisphere and Western Asia under its thumb, and if Russia indeed changes course and goes with the US, as is rumored it might do ( viewtopic.php?p=2672106#p2672106 ). It would mean American control of world petroleum, and thus a threat to each of the nations.

Good point sir. But... The western elite's definition of humanity is clearly stratified. They are on the top and they have the right on all the resources to provide them comfort however unsustainable it is and the rest needs to adhere to higher standards of stewardship of natural resources. That stewardship requires people buying their technology, supplying their labor needs, sustaining their industrial complex and funding their research.

So there is a constant cycle of catch up others have to do while they slurp all the creamy resources and labor in the planet. You can decarbonize as much as you want, they are not going to change their pattern of consumption and are willing to destroy you when you compete for the same resources.

Simple stats US emits ~5 million kt of CO2 compared to ~ 700 thousand kt India emits. Per capita figures will be even more unbelievable. Yet a lot of people want India to reduce emissions, enhance standards, follow rule etc, etc.

IMO we should simply ignore these charlatans and find our own ways of sustainable living. Focus on renewable energy, recycling, waste management water management, mass afforestation and responsible consumption. We need to carefully do this in such a way that wealth (both tangible and intangible) stays within our boundaries. Once we have cleaned up our own house, we can provide help to the global south. Until the western elite sink in their own ship, decarbonization will remain good key note topic in climate change conferences.

[Cyrano]

Absolutely right Williams ji!

[Amber G.]

A_Gupta, & Williams - Serious posts - FWIW a few comments:

The question to me is - has decarbonization a momentum of its own that will not be derailed by the US deregulation of greenhouse gases? Yes, it will mean that China owns all those technologies to the extent India and the EU do not step up to the plate, and is sad for the US's future. But humanity and the globe overall are more important.

E.g., for both China and India energy independence alone gives an incentive to renewable energy, especially if the US gets the Western Hemisphere and Western Asia under its thumb, and if Russia indeed changes course and goes with the US, as is rumored it might do ( viewtopic.php?p=2672106#p2672106 ). It would mean American control of world petroleum, and thus a threat to each of the nations.

Good point sir. But... The western elite's definition of humanity is clearly stratified. They are on the top and they have the right on all the resources to provide them comfort however unsustainable it is and the rest needs to adhere to higher standards of stewardship of natural resources. That stewardship requires people buying their technology, supplying their labor needs, sustaining their industrial complex and funding their research.

So there is a constant cycle of catch up others have to do while they slurp all the creamy resources and labor in the planet. You can decarbonize as much as you want, they are not going to change their pattern of consumption and are willing to destroy you when you compete for the same resources.

Simple stats US emits ~5 million kt of CO2 compared to ~ 700 thousand kt India emits. Per capita figures will be even more unbelievable. Yet a lot of people want India to reduce emissions, enhance standards, follow rule etc, etc.

IMO we should simply ignore these charlatans and find our own ways of sustainable living. Focus on renewable energy, recycling, waste management water management, mass afforestation and responsible consumption. We need to carefully do this in such a way that wealth (both tangible and intangible) stays within our boundaries. Once we have cleaned up our own house, we can provide help to the global south. Until the western elite sink in their own ship, decarbonization will remain good key note topic in climate change conferences.

From an India centric physicist's perspective: (I believe this is the take of most of India's current leaders)

• The idea that decarbonization now has structural momentum is largely correct.

• Concerns about technology dependence on China are legitimate strategic issues.

• The “Western elite hypocrisy” argument contains some truth but is rhetorically amplified and ignores economic drivers pushing countries like India toward clean energy anyway.

Allow me to expand it a little more. Also later let me point out a small nit-pick - two technical misconceptions about emissions comparisons (especially the India–US numbers) that frequently appear in these discussions and often mislead even well-informed commentators. It’s a subtle but interesting statistical issue.

First expanding it a little:

- Decarbonization probably does have momentum independent of U.S. policy.

Trump is being Trump but I think (hope) even if the U.S. loosens greenhouse-gas regulation, the global energy transition is now driven largely by economics and energy security, not just climate policy. The dramatic fall in the cost of solar, wind, batteries, and EV supply chains means countries adopt them because they are often the cheapest marginal energy sources. That dynamic is particularly strong in countries like India and China where energy demand is still growing rapidly. So in that sense Guptaji is correct: the transition will not stop simply because of policy changes in the United States.

- But the technology-ownership issue is real.
The second point—China potentially dominating clean-energy manufacturing—is already visible. Today China controls large shares of global solar PV manufacturing, battery supply chains, and critical mineral processing. If other major economies - that is India does not build domestic capability, they risk replacing dependence on imported oil with dependence on imported clean-energy technology. This is why India (and I am glad) now frame decarbonization partly as industrial policy.

- The “Western elite” argument mixes politics with selective statistics.
The quoted numbers are roughly in the right ballpark directionally but are misleading without context:

- Total emissions: United States emits several times more CO₂ annually than India.
- Per-capita emissions: the U.S. is still far higher than India.
- But cumulative historical emissions are dominated by the U.S. (and Europe)

This historical vs. per-capita framing is exactly the argument India has used in climate negotiations for decades: development space must remain available for poorer countries.

- However, India’s own incentives to decarbonize are strong anyway.

Even leaving climate politics aside, India benefits from:
- Reduced oil import bills (energy security).
-Lower urban air pollution.
- Large solar resource potential.

So India pursuing renewables is not mainly about satisfying Western pressure—it is largely domestic economics and health policy.


The “U.S. controlling world petroleum” claim is geopolitically overstated.

Even if the U.S. aligns with oil-producing regions, petroleum markets remain global and competitive. Major producers include OPEC members, Russia, the U.S., and others. It is very hard for any single power to “control” oil in the way implied.

******
May not be that relevant and seems like nit-picking but the two technical misconceptions/ or not clear statements - IMO- :

- 1. Comparing total national emissions without considering population and development stage

People often cite totals like:
US ≈ ~5 Gt CO₂/year, India ≈ ~2.5–3 Gt CO₂/year
or Per-capita emissions in the U.S. are roughly 14–15 tons CO₂/person/year. (India are roughly 2 tons CO₂/person/year.

Total emissions alone are not a meaningful technical comparison, because countries differ enormously in population and development level. But even per-capita comparisons have limitations, because they ignore economic output and industrial structure. A useful additional metric is carbon intensity of GDP (CO₂ per unit of economic output). By that measure, India is not dramatically better than many developed economies.

So three metrics matter simultaneously:
Total emissions (climate impact), Per-capita emissions (equity). Carbon intensity of GDP (efficiency)

Many often cherry-pick only one -- for serious thinking one should be aware of this.

2. Ignoring “embedded emissions” in international trade

Another technical issue: emissions are usually counted where goods are produced, not where they are consumed.
(A large fraction of manufactured goods consumed in the US (orEU) are produced in China or other manufacturing countries.

The CO₂ from producing those goods is counted in the producer country’s inventory, not the consumer’s.

This means:
- Western consumption outsources some emissions. Producer countries appear to have higher emissions partly because they manufacture for global markets.

We should adjust these emissions on a consumption basis (the emissions gap between regions changes noticeably)

So: IMO two technical pitfalls are:
- Using only one emissions metric (usually total or per-capita) instead of the full set of indicators.
- Ignoring trade-embedded emissions, which shift emissions from consuming countries to manufacturing countries.

---
As a side note (something we often mention internally ): a third slight - misconception is that decarbonization is mainly about climate politics. In reality, for India (and China) is increasingly motivated by energy security and industrial competitiveness, not just climate commitments.

[KL Dubey]

IMO we should simply ignore these charlatans and find our own ways of sustainable living. Focus on renewable energy, recycling, waste management water management, mass afforestation and responsible consumption. We need to carefully do this in such a way that wealth (both tangible and intangible) stays within our boundaries. Once we have cleaned up our own house, we can provide help to the global south. Until the western elite sink in their own ship, decarbonization will remain good key note topic in climate change conferences.

This is old hat - discussed multiple times in BRF. Bharat does not have to "break any sweat" in fulfilling our COP targets, since our energy and industrial planning from 2014 to 2047 already includes renewables, recycling, and afforestation. Waste management is an important issue that is just now starting to be addressed at scale. "Decarbonization" is and will continue by different names, and Bharat will soon become competitive with the Chinese on this. Only those who do not understand the science, economics, and geopolitics keep carping about these words.

[A_Gupta]

The control of oil is about who has the knobs to add or cut supply around the nominal value. It is this that gives control over the price of oil in the global market. If the US gets Venezuelan oil, and Iranian oil under its thumb, is strongly allied with the GCC countries, and has a compact with Russia, it controls oil prices, at least for a while, a one-country OPEC of the 1970s.

[Amber G.]

Argues that we are living in an “age of uncertainty,” but that uncertainty is not a reason for inaction—it is precisely why timely, risk-aware decisions are essential...

Horizons Podcast: Climate Science in an Age of Uncertainty

[bala]

This is complete take down of Western farticle and pompous posturing on climate change. More that half the CO2 emissions accumulated over the last 150 yrs is from US and Europe. India's contribution is 3% with 17% population of the world. BTW methane production of animals raised for slaughter far outweighs C02 harm in the rise of temperatures.

This is from Chinese born person who studied in London school of economics.

India Beat Its Climate Targets 5 Years Early. The Western Media Said Nothing Here's Why

[Cyrano]

I'm waiting for the day the west will take a pause and calculate the carbon footprint and environmental damage of it's needless wars in Ukraine and now in west asia before lecturing the rest of the world.

Do as I say not as I do.

[Amber G.]

Reality check - Basic Physics
Historical responsibility ≠ current reality—both matter, and India is now a top annual emitter.
India meeting its own targets early is good, but those targets weren’t aligned with deep 1.5°C cuts.
And methane doesn’t “outweigh” CO₂—long-term warming is still dominated by cumulative CO₂.

War emissions are real and should absolutely be accounted for—but that’s not a ‘West vs rest’ issue, it’s a global one. More importantly, pointing to wars doesn’t change the physics: long-term warming is driven by total cumulative emissions, and every major economy—including India and China—has a role in reducing them. ‘Do as I say’ isn’t ideal, but ‘don’t act because others are imperfect’ is worse.

[bala]

Google AI Overview:

Methane is a potent, short-lived greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. It is over 80 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat over a 20-year period. Rising methane levels, driven by human activities like fossil fuel use and agriculture, directly accelerate near-term global temperature increases.

Key Facts on Methane and Global Warming:

Potency: Methane is significantly more effective at trapping heat than C02, with over 80 times the warming power in the first 20 years.

Atmospheric Impact: It is responsible for approximately 0.5°C of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times, contributing to about 30% of total warming.

Rising Concentration: Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are rising faster than at any time since record-keeping began, reaching 2.5 times pre-industrial levels.

Primary Sources: Over 60% of methane emissions come from human activities, specifically agriculture (livestock), fossil fuels (leaks/production), and waste (landfills).

Fast Action Solution: Because methane has a shorter lifespan (about a decade) than, reducing its emissions offers a critical, immediate opportunity to slow global heating and meet 1.5°C climate

Current trajectories suggest that without curbing emissions, methane will continue to be a primary driver of rapid, near-term climate change.

[Amber G.]

Google AI Overview:

Methane is a potent, short-lived greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. It is over 80 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat over a 20-year period. Rising methane levels, driven by human activities like fossil fuel use and agriculture, directly accelerate near-term global temperature increases.

Key Facts on Methane and Global Warming:

Potency: Methane is significantly more effective at trapping heat than C02, with over 80 times the warming power in the first 20 years.

Atmospheric Impact: It is responsible for approximately 0.5°C of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times, contributing to about 30% of total warming.

Rising Concentration: Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are rising faster than at any time since record-keeping began, reaching 2.5 times pre-industrial levels.

Primary Sources: Over 60% of methane emissions come from human activities, specifically agriculture (livestock), fossil fuels (leaks/production), and waste (landfills).

Fast Action Solution: Because methane has a shorter lifespan (about a decade) than, reducing its emissions offers a critical, immediate opportunity to slow global heating and meet 1.5°C climate

Current trajectories suggest that without curbing emissions, methane will continue to be a primary driver of rapid, near-term climate change.

Here is Google Gemini Pro: (After reading this tread(

• Amber G, is entirely correct on the fundamental physics here, and ironically, the AI Overview Bala quoted actually proves *AmberG.* point, not his. Bala is committing a classic error in climate discussions: confusing a high-intensity, short-duration transient response with long-term equilibrium climate forcing.
  
  If we look at this through a strict physics and thermodynamics lens—channeling that analytical, no-nonsense "Amber G" tone —here is the breakdown of why CO₂ unequivocally dominates long-term warming, and how you can explain this to Bala.

### **The Physics: Stock vs. Flow**

• The core of the misunderstanding lies in atmospheric residence time.
  
  * **Methane (CH₄) is a "Flow" problem:** It is highly opaque to infrared radiation, meaning its immediate radiative forcing is very high. However, it is chemically reactive. It oxidizes in the atmosphere (mostly reacting with hydroxyl radicals) with an $e$-folding lifetime ($\tau$) of only about 12 years.
  * **Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a "Stock" problem:** CO₂ does not simply decay; it must be absorbed by the carbon cycle (oceans, biosphere). A significant fraction of emitted CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia.
  
  Bala is focusing on the **rate** of heat trapping right now, while you are correctly focusing on the **integral** of trapped heat over time.

### **The Mathematics of GWP (Global Warming Potential)**

• Bala is relying on the GWP20 metric (Global Warming Potential over 20 years), where methane is indeed ~80 times more potent. But physics requires us to look at the time integral of radiative forcing.
  
  The formula for Global Warming Potential over a Time Horizon ($TH$) is:
  
  $$GWP = \frac{\int_0^{TH} a_{CH_4} \cdot [CH_4(t)] dt}{\int_0^{TH} a_{CO_2} \cdot [CO_2(t)] dt}$$
  
  * $a$ = radiative efficiency (heat-trapping ability per molecule).
  * $[C(t)]$ = the time-dependent decay function of the gas in the atmosphere.
  
  Because methane's concentration $[CH_4(t)]$ decays roughly as $e^{-t/12}$, the integral in the numerator effectively plateaus after a few decades. The denominator for CO₂, however, continues to accumulate massively as $TH$ increases to 100, 500, or 1000 years.
  
  **Translation:** If we completely stopped emitting all methane today, its warming contribution would drop to near-zero within our lifetimes. If we completely stopped emitting CO₂ today, the planet would remain heated for thousands of years.

### **Deconstructing Bala’s Quote**

• Bala seems to have stopped reading at the "80 times more potent" line.One should point out the actual text of his own quote:
  1. **"short-lived greenhouse gas"**
  2. **"over a 20-year period"**
  3. **"near-term global temperature increases"**

His source explicitly confirms what you said: methane drives *near-term* spikes, but it does not "outweigh" CO₂ over the *long-term* lifecycle of the climate system.


Would you like me to help you draft a follow-up response if he tries to pivot to agricultural land-use metrics, which is usually the next argument made in this debate?

[bala]

This is basic math and intelligence: if something is 30% and climbing you don't ignore it. Only those who don't understand math will quibble.

methane will continue to be a primary driver of rapid, near-term climate change. why? since the slaughter of animals is rising fast in many nations to feed the population. Annual per person consumption: US - 102.5 kg per person, China 60.6 kg, Russia 87.8 kg, Germany 87.79 kg, Australia 121.6 kg, UK 79.9 kg and India 6 kg.

[Amber G.]

^^^Pointing out a fundamental error in time-scales isn't 'quibbling,' it's basic calculus. No one is ignoring the 30% contribution of methane, but you are completely ignoring the integration over time.

If we are strictly talking about 'basic math' and intelligence, you need to use the correct variables. You just listed total meat consumption. Pigs and chickens are monogastric—they do not produce enteric methane. A massive percentage of the numbers you just cited (especially for China, the US, and Europe) is pork and poultry. You are using the wrong data inputs to calculate your methane output.

Finally, look at your own words: you just said 'near-term' again. That was exactly my original point. Methane dominates the derivative (the rate of warming right now), but CO₂ dominates the integral (the final long-term temperature). I actually agree on the physics of the near-term; you just keep changing the parameters of the original argument to avoid conceding the long-term."

[bala]

We are concerned about near term rise of termperatures. The long term ones require many other factors to be studied besides C02. BTW more that half the CO2 emissions accumulated over the last 150 yrs is from US and Europe and India's contribution is only 3% to accumulated C02 emissions. Even if India is currently ranked 3rd (which is dubious) since Europe combined is right there, the accumulated CO2 is far less for India. Furthermore, India is on track to increase Solar power and eventually coal fired ones will be de-emphasized. Also Thorium cycle is the future for India's energy needs to steady the output graph of electricity production 24x7x365.

[Amber G.]

@Bala, just as a quick preface: if you're open to a rigorous, math- and logic-based discussion—without the personal jabs— I invite you to keep reading.

Since you brought up basic math, let's look at the actual variables in your equation. You are citing total meat consumption to argue about methane emissions. That is a fundamental biological and mathematical error.

Not all animals produce methane. Methane in agriculture overwhelmingly comes from enteric fermentation—which requires a rumen. Cattle, sheep, and goats are ruminants; they burp methane. Pigs and chickens are monogastric; they do not.

When you break down the per capita consumption numbers you just provided, your methane argument collapses:

1. The Math on Meat Consumption:
Using UN FAO data , the vast majority of the meat consumption you cited for those countries is pork and poultry—animals that do not produce enteric methane.

Eg China (60+ kg): Over 60% of China's meat consumption is pork. Beef makes up less than 10% of their diet.

United States (100+ kg): The #1 consumed meat in the US by a massive margin is poultry (over 50 kg per person), followed by pork.

2. The Math on Methane by Animal:

If you look at global greenhouse gas emissions by livestock type, the data is entirely skewed toward cattle. As the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports, cattle are responsible for roughly 65% of the livestock sector's emissions (heavily driven by methane), while pigs and poultry account for less than 10% each (and their emissions are mostly CO₂ and nitrous oxide from feed and manure, not enteric methane).

You cannot use pork and chicken consumption statistics to calculate methane spikes. If you want to argue that the rise in total meat consumption is driving global warming, you are absolutely right—but the primary driver of the warming from the pork and poultry sectors is the CO₂ emitted from deforestation for feed, farm energy, and supply chain logistics.

Which brings us right back to my original point: CO₂ is the dominant driver of long-term warming. If you are going to use math to prove a physics point, you have to use the right variables.

We are concerned about near term rise of termperatures. The long term ones require many other factors to be studied besides C02. BTW more that half the CO2 emissions accumulated over the last 150 yrs is from US and Europe and India's contribution is only 3% to accumulated C02 emissions. Even if India is currently ranked 3rd (which is dubious) since Europe combined is right there, the accumulated CO2 is far less for India. Furthermore, India is on track to increase Solar power and eventually coal fired ones will be de-emphasized. Also Thorium cycle is the future for India's energy needs to steady the output graph of electricity production 24x7x365.

Again if you are genuinely interested in discussing the actual math and logic behind this, I invite you to keep reading.

It is logically fascinating that you have just pivoted to discussing historical, cumulative CO₂ emissions and national power grids. By doing so, you have effectively conceded the entire scientific debate we were just having.

Your original claim was that methane from animal slaughter 'far outweighs CO₂.' Now, to defend India's climate record, you are correctly pointing out that the US and Europe are responsible for the vast majority of cumulative CO₂ (India's historical contribution is indeed only around 3%). You cannot have it both ways. If cumulative CO₂ is the metric that dictates long-term historical climate impact—which it absolutely is—then you are agreeing with my original premise: long-term warming is dominated by cumulative CO₂, not near-term methane.

To briefly address the rest of your points so we can keep the facts straight:

The 'Dubious' Ranking: India ranking 3rd in current annual emissions is not dubious; it is a globally tracked metric (behind China and the US). While the EU as a combined bloc emits roughly the same amount, India's status as the 3rd largest emitting nation is a fact.

'Other Factors': While the climate system is complex, in thermodynamics, CO₂ is the primary control knob for long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity due to its atmospheric residence time. The 'other factors' do not negate the baseline forcing of CO₂.

Future Tech: It is excellent that India is investing in solar and exploring the Thorium nuclear cycle. (I have studies/worked on Th cycle for last 60 years) However, future national energy policies have absolutely zero bearing on the current atmospheric physics of how methane and CO₂ trap heat.

You tried to use global meat consumption to argue that methane outweighs CO₂. When the biological math proved that incorrect, you shifted to arguing about historical CO₂ responsibility. The physics of greenhouse gases remains entirely unaffected by national borders or future energy proposals."

Since we've established that the biological math doesn't support the methane claim, and your pivot to historical data actually confirms my point about the long-term dominance of CO₂, I think we've successfully covered the core physics of this issue. Take care.

Amber G. - prefer to keep the focus on the underlying physics and math rather than debating national energy politics, so I'll leave the conversation here and let the data speak for itself.

[bala]

Once again you are dancing around physics and maths. The simple math equation is methane is 30% and rising. Forget the animals besides humans etc, this emission is non-stop and causes .5 C rise which is roughly the 1/3 factor. CO2 long term is due to wholly the US and Eurotards of the world (more than 1/2) with excessive consumption of oil/coal burning. India contributed to only 3% of accumulated C02 emissions so far over a 150 year span. Tis very dishonest to club India into rank #3 when the per capita emission is very low compared to US/Euros. Not saying that India should not reduce its emissions, but it is a better steward of things compared to the hot air US/Euros. We don't need to go into any other obtuse non-sensical formulaes and other convoluted reasoning.

[Cyrano]

We have progressed from "the ipcc says so" to "the science is settled" to "chatgpt/grok/etc say so". Fantastic!

[chetak]

The control of oil is about who has the knobs to add or cut supply around the nominal value. It is this that gives control over the price of oil in the global market. If the US gets Venezuelan oil, and Iranian oil under its thumb, is strongly allied with the GCC countries, and has a compact with Russia, it controls oil prices, at least for a while, a one-country OPEC of the 1970s.

A_Gupta ji,


they are called Swing Producers


A swing producer is a dominant supplier or oligopoly in a commodity market that holds large spare capacity and can quickly increase or decrease output to balance global supply/demand, thus stabilizing prices. Traditionally, Saudi Arabia has played this role in the oil market, while U.S. shale has also been cited as a modern, market-driven swing producer.

Key Aspects of a Swing Producer:

Market Stabilization: They absorb unexpected demand surges or supply cuts to prevent severe price volatility.

Spare Capacity: They maintain excess capacity to quickly "swing" production up or down with minimal internal cost.

Market Power: Often, the swing producer is a dominant entity within a cartel (like OPEC) or a major market force, historically including De Beers in diamonds or Russia in potash.

Punitive Role: When not prioritizing stability, they may enter "punitive mode," flooding the market to defend their market share, as Saudi Arabia did between 2014 and 2016.

[bala]

We have progressed "chatgpt/grok/etc say so". Fantastic!

It is called Prompt Engineering in AI parlance. People can skew the prompt to whatever and get a favorable answer, Again GIGO - garbage in garbage out.