Support NeoGAF

[highrider]

People think she is acting. Why are you lying to yourself?

If it's disingenuous or real is kind of irrelevant, it's a cringeworthy emotional diatribe on any level, and as others have said, what does this actually do. And you also have to account for her being a special needs kid. How real is anything they say.

 

[V4skunk]

How come she doesn't take her shit to China?

China knows C02 is good for the trees / algae that make the oxygen! Why would they care?

 

[Papa]

I told you I'm not interested in your theory about how all of this is smoke and mirrors and a cover for the chinese government to take over the world. thats your argument isnt it? I said I don't give a shit about China. Now what?

Use oil or china takes over. Greta is a front for anti american points of view by the deep state.
climate change is a combination of man made elements and natural ones but let's ignore the man made ones. Calling people names is a great way to prove your point though. If I shout enough the other party with shut up. You argue about points I didn't even make and present your ironclad truthfact.

My position remains that you attack an autistic child because you are mad no one sees the light. You can argue all you want that its the idea you are targetting and not a person but you the only thing you can do is hurl insults because thats all you have. I'm looking forward to your next tantrum. I think I can see sone foam from your mouth from here.

That's not at all what I said, moron.

 

[moka]

Just because you can go on March/gathering does not mean you are doing anything major....

You are being very cynical. Marches and gatherings and protest work. Look at how effective it was in Hong Kong. What's the alternative? No marches and no gatherings? They help raise awareness, as I mentioned in my post and help change the conversation! This is an important first step in any movement!

How come she doesn't take her shit to China?

I'm sorry but whataboutism is never a valid argument. Yes China should do their bit and we should use whatever levers we have available to us to force them to do their bit but there is always more that we can do! Need I remind you that the international community could easily apply significant pressure on China to meet their green targets but we are reluctant to do so because we are beholden to them! There is always more we can do. Always. This world is all of ours - it's time to be the grownup and take responsibility.

I don't think she is suggesting anything radical, she merely suggesting international governments immediately investigate and implement policy that respects economic and political realities based on scientific fact! This is more than necessary in the political climate of today where we have the US government openly questioning the validity the science behind climate change.

 

[Kadayi]

I think climate change is a valid concern, but I'm not sure that pushing front and centre to the stage an angry autistic kid whose just wildly fingerpointing at everyone older than her and venting is necessarily an admirable thing for those behind it. The ugly reality to climate change and how to reduce our impact on it a shockingly simple one, Far fewer people. People get uneasy at that notion for obvious reasons, but the truth is through science and technology we've overcome our historic mortality rates and dramatically increased life expectancy, but without curbing our historic fecundity in the process to the detriment of our global ecological footprint. Globally governments need to start thinking about population control in a pro-active manner because long term it's not sustainable to carry on the way we are.

 

[Papa]

I think climate change is a valid concern, but I'm not sure that pushing front and centre to the stage an angry autistic kid whose just wildly fingerpointing at everyone older than her and venting is necessarily an admirable thing for those behind it. The ugly reality to climate change and how to reduce our impact on it a shockingly simple one, Far fewer people. People get uneasy at that notion for obvious reasons, but the truth is through science and technology we've overcome our historic mortality rates and dramatically increased life expectancy, but without curbing our historic fecundity in the process to the detriment of our global ecological footprint. Globally governments need to start thinking about population control in a pro-active manner because long term it's not sustainable to carry on the way we are.

"Governments need to start thinking about population control"

This sends shivers up my spine.

 

[Kadayi]

"Governments need to start thinking about population control"

This sends shivers up my spine.

Why? I'm not on about culling people. But there's a good argument to be made for stricter control on the number of children we allow into the world. I mean what part of unsustainable is lost on you exactly?

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Why? I'm not on about culling people. But there's a good argument to be made for stricter control on the number of children we allow into the world. I mean what part of unsustainable is lost on you exactly?

"What, guys, I'm just saying eugenics isn't the worst idea"

 

[Kadayi]

"What, guys, I'm just saying eugenics isn't the worst idea"

I'm thinking more welfare reform tbh, but still whatever floats your boat.

 

[Papa]

Why? I'm not on about culling people. But there's a good argument to be made for stricter control on the number of children we allow into the world. I mean what part of unsustainable is lost on you exactly?

I'm optimistic that we can develop technological solutions without resorting to anti-human measures. Would you trust government to implement them anyway?

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I'm thinking more welfare reform tbh, but still whatever floats your boat.

Like "to be on welfare we need to have your tubes tied and give you a vasectomy"??? lol

 

[womfalcs3]

How come she doesn't take her shit to China?

She went to the UN... of which China is a part...

 

[Explosive Zombie]

She went to the UN... of which China is a part...

Without singling them out, though it doesn't mean anything. They will ignore it, countries that already have done more than ever to reduce their carbon footprint will continue to hamper their own way of life in a vain attempt to offset what China is doing to the ecosystem.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm optimistic that we can develop technological solutions without resorting to anti-human measures.

Like "to be on welfare we need to have your tubes tied and give you a vasectomy"??? lol

The inherent problem with most welfare is it picks up the tab for children born whilst on it without question. Therefore there is little incentive for people on welfare to not procreate. I spent a couple of years working in Social Security in my early 20s and when you're dealing day in day out with single moms with 3 + kids none of whom are ever likely to escape the poverty trap you quickly lose that rose-tinted glasses view of the world that 'children are a right'. It's rarely people with money who overbreed.

She went to the UN... of which China is a part...

China be like: -

 

[Alx]

The problem with direct population control is that it cannot apply to all countries equally. Poorer countries still rely on a strong natality to support their economy, because it's more dependent on total amount of workers/consumers than high technology/way of life. So if the plan is to say to all countries "just make less kids" (and especially to the ones with the higher population growth), it would be seen as a way to keep the richer countries rich and the poorer countries poor.
That's why there's this theory that we could reduce population growth by helping poorer countries develop faster. As we observed in Europe or North America, once you have a comfortable life with a huge part of it dedicated to entertainment and leisure, you have less incentive to have more than a couple of kids.

 

[Kadayi]

The problem with direct population control is that it cannot apply to all countries equally. Poorer countries still rely on a strong natality to support their economy, because it's more dependent on total amount of workers/consumers than high technology/way of life. So if the plan is to say to all countries "just make less kids" (and especially to the ones with the higher population growth), it would be seen as a way to keep the richer countries rich and the poorer countries poor.
That's why there's this theory that we could reduce population growth by helping poorer countries develop faster. As we observed in Europe or North America, once you have a comfortable life with a huge part of it dedicated to entertainment and leisure, you have less incentive to have more than a couple of kids.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's all very well to say 'we need to elevate the 3rd world to 1st world status' as some form of an alternative solution, but it's not much of a suggestion if we aren't prepared to clear up our own backyards in the process by tackling the poverty traps in our own counties and carrying out welfare reforms that return it to be what it was intended to be as a social safety net for when people fall on hard times versus a lifestyle choice. There's a big difference between being Poor in India versus in the UK or the US.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

I'm thinking more welfare reform tbh, but still whatever floats your boat.

Call of Duty: Modern Welfare













I'll see myself out

 

[Alx]

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's all very well to say 'we need to elevate the 3rd world to 1st world status' as some form of an alternative solution, but it's not much of a suggestion if we aren't prepared to clear up our own backyards in the process by tackling the poverty traps in our own counties and carrying out welfare reforms that return it to be a what it was intended to be as a social safety net for when people fall on hard times versus a lifestyle choice. There's a big difference between being Poor in India versus in the UK or the US.

It's not exclusive with having welfare reforms to counter poverty in rich countries indeed, but it's a whole different problem and has little to do with overpopulation.

 

[Contica]

Without singling them out, though it doesn't mean anything. They will ignore it, countries that already have done more than ever to reduce their carbon footprint will continue to hamper their own way of life in a vain attempt to offset what China is doing to the ecosystem.

Why do you guys keep going on about China? Why should she single them out? It's one of, if not the country with the highest investments in renewable energy.

Google china and renewable energy if you wanna know more.

 

[Chiggs]

She went to the UN... of which China is a part...

Hahahahaha! Hey, everyone, look at this disingenuous bullshit!

Why do you guys keep going on about China?

Because China is the biggest polluter on the planet, and the amount of damage they're doing to the world is almost unfathomable?

Meanwhile, St Greta the Courageous gets mad at the evil Gary Trudeau.

 

[Kadayi]

It's not exclusive with having welfare reforms to counter poverty in rich countries indeed, but it's a whole different problem and has little to do with overpopulation.

As we don't have global governance, which is earlier to achieve? It's absolutely possible for national governments to address there own internal problems directly, it's a little more nebulous to suggest "we" reform the 3rd world economically. It's also a lot easier to export ideas when you have tried and tested models.

 

[Contica]

Hahahahaha! Hey, everyone, look at this disingenuous bullshit!



Because China is the biggest polluter on the planet, and the amount of damage they're doing to the world is almost unfathomable?

Meanwhile, St Greta the Courageous gets mad at the evil Gary Trudeau.

What would you have them do that they're not already doing? Kill off their population?

 

[Nester99]

What would you have them do that they're not already doing? Kill off their population?

They could stop stealing childhoods and dreams for one!

 

[Chiggs]

What would you have them do that they're not already doing? Kill off their population?

1. Stop dumping their plastic trash and toxic waste in the ocean, which inspires other Asian countries to follow suit.
2. Work in earnest with the global community, and I mean on ALL fronts, including those that might leave it superficially vulnerable in the eyes of Communist hardliners, to reduce carbon emissions.
3. Create the Chinese version of Pippi Longstocking and have her sail across the ocean on a racing yacht, then immediately launch into an environmental tirade the minute she is greeted by Los Angelenos who are already environmentally-concerned. Send Chinese Pippi Longstocking on a shaming tour across the United States, starting in West Virginia.

 

[Contica]

1. Stop dumping their plastic trash and toxic waste in the ocean, which inspires other Asian countries to follow suit.
2. Work in earnest with the global community, and I mean on ALL fronts, including those that might leave it superficially vulnerable in the eyes of Communist hardliners, to reduce carbon emissions.
3. Create the Chinese version of Pippi Longstocking and have her sail across the ocean on a racing yacht, then immediately launch into an environmental tirade the minute she is greeted by Los Angelenos who are already environmentally-concerned. Send Chinese Pippi Longstocking on a shaming tour across the United States, starting in West Virginia.

1. They're trying. One step is that they stopped importing plastic waste from the rest of the world. You know, the plastic waste shipped to China under the pretense of being recycled. Now we, the world, send our garbage to other asian countries instead, but that's hardly China's fault. We're talking about a lot of garbage here, so if we want to stop this, we need to reduse how much plastic we use. Not complain that the countries we unload it on aren't able to handle it well.

Also, your link doesn't back up your claims. It talks about the plastic problem in Asia, it doesn't point fingers, and it looks for sollutions. Nowhere is it mentioned that China dumps plastic in rivers, and the only river mentioned is in Indonesia. Now that doesn't mean China doesn't dump waste in rivers, but your link doesn't back it up.

Going by this though, it doesn't exactly soukd like the toxic waste dumping is taken lightly. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...ils-nine-dumping-tens-thousands-tonnes-refuse

2. China doesn't really seem to care about the global community as much as they care about results. But I think you need to be more precise. Saying they need to cooperate without detailing how they're not, is a bit empty.

3. Whatever.

I'm not a fan of China, they're human rights stance is a joke. But they get results. And if I had a choice between free speech and clean air for my children, I'd go with the air.

 

[Chiggs]

Also, your link doesn't back up your claims. It talks about the plastic problem in Asia, it doesn't point fingers, and it looks for sollutions. Nowhere is it mentioned that China dumps plastic in rivers, and the only river mentioned is in Indonesia. Now that doesn't mean China doesn't dump waste in rivers, but your link doesn't back it up.

Since you're going to be intentionally and willfully ignorant:

Around 90% of all river-borne plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers | World Economic Forum

The Yangtze is Asia's longest river and also one of world's most ecologically important rivers. The river basin is home to almost 500 million people (more than one third of China's population). It is also the biggest carrier of plastic pollution to the ocean.

Of course, you knew this. So happy they're doing something about it...seeing as how they're the world's biggest offender.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

How is China actually being defended in here, their CO2 emissions are greater than the US and EU combined.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

How is China actually being defended in here, their CO2 emissions are greater than the US and EU combined.

Bu but muh per capita.

 

[AgentP]

Don't like her or the message? Don't make threads, don't waste time, ignore her and move on. I guess this is the Instagram generation, everyone has a stupid opinion and has to go to the Internet to express it...

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Don't like her or the message? Don't make threads, don't waste time, ignore her and move on. I guess this is the Instagram generation, everyone has a stupid opinion and has to go to the Internet to express it...

Yeah, I went to the internet on it, I'm not a 16 year old sperg so my invite to talk to the United Nations didn't come through yet.

 

[Contica]

Since you're going to be intentionally and willfully ignorant:

Around 90% of all river-borne plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers | World Economic Forum

Of course, you knew this. So happy they're doing something about it...seeing as how they're the world's biggest offender.

Do you even read the links you post? This site specifically mentions steps China is taking to reduse this very problem. Some of the steps I already pointed out but yeah, I'm the ignorant one.

This is from the link you just posted:
"According to the UN Environment Program head Erik Solheim, while China is the biggest producer of plastic waste, it is also making major efforts to curb it.

"If there is one nation changing at the moment more than anyone else, it's China ... the speed and determination of the government to change is enormous," said Solheim"

So what do you want? To nail them for having gotten to this point? Does it not matter that they're doing something about it?

Nobody is denying there is a huge pollution issue in China, but they are taking more steps os than most other countries to fix it, that is the entire point.

How is China actually being defended in here, their CO2 emissions are greater than the US and EU combined.

Nobody is denying that.

Who is it worth going after? The one who is acknowledging there is a problem and is trying to fix it, or the one who ignores it?

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Do you even read the links you post? This site specifically mentions steps China is taking to reduse this very problem. Some of the steps I already pointed out but yeah, I'm the ignorant one.

This is from the link you just posted:
"According to the UN Environment Program head Erik Solheim, while China is the biggest producer of plastic waste, it is also making major efforts to curb it.

"If there is one nation changing at the moment more than anyone else, it's China ... the speed and determination of the government to change is enormous," said Solheim"

So what do you want? To nail them for having gotten to this point? Does it not matter that they're doing something about it?

Nobody is denying there is a huge pollution issue in China, but they are taking more steps os than most other countries to fix it, that is the entire point.




Nobody is denying that.

Who is it worth going after? The one who is acknowledging there is a problem and is trying to fix it, or the one who ignores it?

What, under Trump we hit a 73 year low for carbon emissions. Not sure what you're on about, mate.

 

[Contica]

What, under Trump we hit a 73 year low for carbon emissions. Not sure what you're on about, mate.

Ditto.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

On the campaign trail and as president, Donald Trump has expressed his skepticism about global warming. So it was a bit

www.politifact.com

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Ditto.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

On the campaign trail and as president, Donald Trump has expressed his skepticism about global warming. So it was a bit

www.politifact.com

You just unironically linked to a Politifact article, it doesn't even prove the claim wrong, just does what it can to take credibility away from Trump, are they the lowest in 73 years or not? The answer seems to be yes, but thank you Politifact for attempting to cloud the issue because Orange Man Bad.

 

[Contica]

You just unironically linked to a Politifact article, it doesn't even prove the claim wrong, just does what it can to take credibility away from Trump, are they the lowest in 73 years or not? The answer seems to be yes, but thank you Politifact for attempting to cloud the issue because Orange Man Bad.

I just googled and picked the first article. But feel free to point out why they're bsd, wikipedia did a poor job of it when I did a quick background on them.

But whatever. I asked why people are asking this girl to go after China, when China is already making efforts. Nobody is making any effort to give a single answer that holds water.

However US emissions changed under Trump is laughably irrelevant.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I just googled and picked the first article. But feel free to point out why they're bsd, wikipedia did a poor job of it when I did a quick background on them.

But whatever. I asked why people are asking this girl to go after China, when China is already making efforts. Nobody is making any effort to give a single answer that holds water.

However US emissions changed under Trump is laughably irrelevant.

China's making efforts is a bullshit argument that no one needs to entertain. If she should only go after countries making zero efforts who exactly is worth going after? What countries are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

PolitiFact Bias

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives

Hillary Clinton does not seem to be the single most honest politician to run for president in the last 10 years. Yet PolitiFact says it’s true.

thefederalist.com

Yes, Politifact Has a Liberal Bias - Dan Bongino

Authored by: Matt Palumbo Politifact...

bongino.com

 

[darkangel-212559]

Edit: I'm sorry I can't. I feel like an ass making fun of someone with assburgers

Ass burgers? Wtf. I have Aspergers. Have a bit of fucking human respect for people who are different then you.

If you don't like her rhetoric fine, but you giving stupid insults to people with AS doesn't make you sound clever. It makes you sound like a total piece of idiotic shit.

 

[Contica]

China's making efforts is a bullshit argument that no one needs to entertain. If she should only go after countries making zero efforts who exactly is worth going after? What countries are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

PolitiFact Bias

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives

Hillary Clinton does not seem to be the single most honest politician to run for president in the last 10 years. Yet PolitiFact says it’s true.

thefederalist.com

Yes, Politifact Has a Liberal Bias - Dan Bongino

Authored by: Matt Palumbo Politifact...

bongino.com

Even if you upload 50 more screenshots about a website that seemed neutral, regarding a claim you made that is irrelevant to the question I posed, that's not gonna prove how horrible the chinese administration is on the issue we're discussing. It's not like the sources you provide here seem any less biased than what you claim politico is, but whatever. I'm not gonna get into a politico debate with you, because I don't give a shit about politico.

Instead of ranting about politico, how about you demonstrate to me exactly how China making efforts is bullshit. And also tell me what they should be doing instead.

If emissions are down in the US, fantastic. Good for you.

 

[Papa]

She went to the UN... of which China is a part...

Not really. I mean yes they're part of the UN but due to their (self-reported) status as a developing country, they're not held to the same standard as others when it comes to emission reduction targets. This is despite them being the second largest economy in the world.

 

[Papa]

The problem with direct population control is that it cannot apply to all countries equally. Poorer countries still rely on a strong natality to support their economy, because it's more dependent on total amount of workers/consumers than high technology/way of life. So if the plan is to say to all countries "just make less kids" (and especially to the ones with the higher population growth), it would be seen as a way to keep the richer countries rich and the poorer countries poor.
That's why there's this theory that we could reduce population growth by helping poorer countries develop faster. As we observed in Europe or North America, once you have a comfortable life with a huge part of it dedicated to entertainment and leisure, you have less incentive to have more than a couple of kids.

That was part of the justification behind handing the American working class over to China: that their economic growth would create a demand for Western liberalism and freedom amongst their wealthy middle and upper classes, causing them to democratize. The opposite happened and we're now dealing with an insatiable economic beast that happily engages in eugenics and oppression of minorities, amongst many other things.

I disagree on entertainment and leisure being the reason that fertility rates are plummeting in the West. Women entering the workforce is the main driver of that. They're now too busy pursuing a career that they don't even consider children until they're 30+, at which point they only have time for 1 or 2 max, if they have any at all.

 

[NeoGiffer]

Edit: I'm sorry I can't. I feel like an ass making fun of someone with assburgers

Ass burgers? Wtf. I have Aspergers. Have a bit of fucking human respect for people who are different then you.

If you don't like her rhetoric fine, but you giving stupid insults to people with AS doesn't make you sound clever. It makes you sound like a total piece of idiotic shit.

 

[Bootyful]

Ass burgers? Wtf. I have Aspergers. Have a bit of fucking human respect for people who are different then you.

If you don't like her rhetoric fine, but you giving stupid insults to people with AS doesn't make you sound clever. It makes you sound like a total piece of idiotic shit.

You joined NeoGAF on my 10th birthday, but I'm sorry

 

[buizel]

Ass burgers? Wtf. I have Aspergers. Have a bit of fucking human respect for people who are different then you.

If you don't like her rhetoric fine, but you giving stupid insults to people with AS doesn't make you sound clever. It makes you sound like a total piece of idiotic shit.

Youre no better, in fact you come across a lot more hostile and mean spirited.

Why would anyone give anyone else base respect just for being different? If someones shit in a cats mouth I aint gunna give them respect just cause theyre different from me.

Respect doesnt work like that, and no ones owed or due it on an internet forum of all places. No one here has any genuine respect for anyone else less they actually know them IRL and can attest to that. It's evident how little 'respect' actually means to you with how little you can show.

That being said, yall stop arguing. We all have shit wrong with us, I was raped but imagine if I went around bitching about every rape joke thrown around. Get over yourself.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Even if you upload 50 more screenshots about a website that seemed neutral, regarding a claim you made that is irrelevant to the question I posed, that's not gonna prove how horrible the chinese administration is on the issue we're discussing. It's not like the sources you provide here seem any less biased than what you claim politico is, but whatever. I'm not gonna get into a politico debate with you, because I don't give a shit about politico.

Instead of ranting about politico, how about you demonstrate to me exactly how China making efforts is bullshit. And also tell me what they should be doing instead.

If emissions are down in the US, fantastic. Good for you.

Not Politico, Politifact. China making efforts is a bullshit argument for why they shouldn't be focused on, because they're still the worst. We're continually getting lower and lower on our carbon footprint and investing more in renewables while they create 90% of the plastic waste in the oceans and rivers. Greta believes the BS about needing to do something drastic in 12 years time, in that sense China is the country not doing enough "drastic" measures to correct such a short timeline that we have. This is not debatable.

 

[Contica]

Not Politico, Politifact. China making efforts is a bullshit argument for why they shouldn't be focused on, because they're still the worst. We're continually getting lower and lower on our carbon footprint and investing more in renewables while they create 90% of the plastic waste in the oceans and rivers. Greta believes the BS about needing to do something drastic in 12 years time, in that sense China is the country not doing enough "drastic" measures to correct such a short timeline that we have. This is not debatable.

Look, man, you're not saying anything I haven't already responded to, and I'm not gonna repeat myself ad nauseum.

That 90% number is bullshit, and just shows how carelessly you read whatever sources you use for information.

I'm done with you.

 

[NeoGiffer]

 

[Papa]

@Contica China isn't investing in renewables out of the goodness of their hearts. If they truly cared about the environment, they wouldn't be self-reporting as a developing country and claiming the associated carbon benefits. Their investment in renewables is about emancipation from the Western fossil fuel economy. They are a net importer and don't have sufficient quantities domestically to support their burgeoning population. No one stands to gain more from the renewables revolution than China and given their propensity for propaganda, I don't doubt that they're engaging in accelerationism. I suspect that's where the 12 year figure may come from. Now don't go all big brain on me like the other idiot earlier in the thread and suggest that I'm handwaving all climate change as a Chinese conspiracy theory. I'm not. I think it's real. I just don't believe the doom is as imminent as some would have us believe.

So the question for me then is: what do you believe to be of higher importance? Fighting climate change on a 12 year timeline or preventing China from seizing global dominance?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I just find the whole situation really sad. She's the victim of abuse if you ask me. I hope she can find happiness some day, but it seems unlikely with parents like hers trying to turn her into some kind of prophet.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Look, man, you're not saying anything I haven't already responded to, and I'm not gonna repeat myself ad nauseum.

That 90% number is bullshit, and just shows how carelessly you read whatever sources you use for information.

I'm done with you.

I'm assuming you're being a pedant because 8 of the 10 rivers contributing 90% of waste are in Asia... like the point is that America and Europe aren't the problem, not pedantic semantics.

Around 90% of all river-borne plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers | World Economic Forum

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

The U.S. was historically the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter, but China now emits more than the U.S. and EU combined.

www.forbes.com

 

[Contica]

I'm assuming you're being a pedant because 8 of the 10 rivers contributing 90% of waste are in Asia... like the point is that America and Europe aren't the problem, not pedantic semantics.

Around 90% of all river-borne plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers | World Economic Forum

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

The U.S. was historically the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter, but China now emits more than the U.S. and EU combined.

www.forbes.com

Yeah... China is a part of Asia, not the other way around.

Read the articles a little bit closer, and spend a minute to work on your math skills. You'll figure it out.