I am not going to argue with a propagandist. You choose the criteria of evaluation to fit your conclusion.

Doesn't that pretty much describe the United States strategy for reducing emissions? The emissions from almost its entire manufacturing sector of 30 years ago have been exported. As this story points out, the emissions from producing the solar panels it uses have been exported to China. The emissions for making the money it uses to buy those solar panels from the LNG it sells are exported to the EU. The reality is no matter how you evaluate it, the Chinese are producing fewer emissions than Americans on a per capita basis now and have collectively produced far fewer total emissions in the past. The rest of the "west" just adds to that disparity.

This is BIll Gates flying off in his jet and complaining about the emissions from somebody's gas hog truck. The complaint is valid, but not the claim to moral superiority.

And if you look at just current emissions, "the west" and China are almost equal when you add just the EU to US emissions. When you add places like the UK and Canada the west pulls ahead in that particular comparison.

But that is using production. So emissions from all the stuff China produces to sell in the US are Chinese emissions.

But I am just playing your propaganda game by cherry picking facts and criteria to support a particular narrative.

You want a non-propaganda narrative for who is responsible for climate change. Try a comparison of total emissions from US and China since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Or, since you are interested in "the west", try a comparison of the total emissions from "the west" and China since the start of the industrial revolution.

So what? We know coal is cheap in China. Probably in Newcastle as well.

Because natural gas from Russian pipelines was cheaper. Where is the evidence that their purchased of LNG is replacing coal?

Not nearly as aggressively as China.

Like I said, you are a propagandist.

Because you are both creating emissions no matter what power you are using.

No one cares who was first. The fact is if you add your demand more emissions are created and the amount of emissions depends on the additional source of power required to meet that demand. It doesn't make any difference whether you are first or last. If your using power results in more dirty power being used then you should stop.

Let me explain it to you from the other direction. When you shut off your demand do you expect the grid operator to reduce the amount of solar used proportional to your use? And a portion of the nuclear power the grid creates. And a portion from hydro? The obvious answer is no. So why are you claiming when you turn the demand on you can measure the effect of that added demand on climate emissions based on a portion of each of those?

In this case you can. You simply have to eliminate the system of carbon credits. The whole idea of carbon emissions as property is absurd and obvious when pasted onto a system of selling credits for reducing emissions.

Example: I own a small woodlot and sell wood to the local paper mill. You agree to paying me for not cutting my trees. The local paper mill buys logs from someone else. You go the the paper mill and it agrees to reduce the logs it buys so it has to reduce the paper it produces. The customer for the paper still needs paper so they buy it from some other paper company that cuts down more trees to meet the new customer's needs. So then you talk to the customer about not using paper and they agree to send emails instead of printing on paper. Of course they have to turn their computer on and send it which creates emissions. And then you hope that the person at the other end doesn't print it.

Oh and did I mention. I flew off on vacation with the extra money you paid me.

The entire idea is ridiculous. There are no carbon offsets. Its just people greenwashing their emissions.

(even though we're both doing the same identical things with the same identical power.)

Sure you are and you should both stop instead of trying to greenwash the added emissions you are creating. If either one of you didn't flip the on switch it would save all the dirty power emissions, not just half.

I was comparing it to not braking at all.

I agree, but you realize those are contradictory statements. To determine a per capita average you have to decide what is attributable to each population. If the United States sells LNG to Europe are the emissions part of Europe's per capita or the US. If China produces solar panels and sells them to the US, are the emissions created part of China's per capita or the US?

Moreover who gets credit for the reduced emissions when the solar panels are used? Clearly the United States is now using cleaner power, but it couldn't do that if China hadn't manufactured the panels.

My take is that the whole effort to attribute emissions is a barrier to actually reducing them. Because it suggests that emissions are owned and private property and reductions are owned like private property. And most importantly, people can pay to lower their emissions by having someone else reduce emissions for them. When in truth the only way to lower emissions is for you to lower your emissions.

Where other sources are cheaper.

Please note the chart is using averages from whatever data they have.

Where is the evidence for that? It may be being used instead of solar and batteries or nuclear power or in addition to all those other sources.

That depends on how you measure who is responsible for emissions and whether you look at per capita emissions. Which is why its obvious you are just spouting propaganda. You aren't even attempting to fairly compare responsibility for emissions.

Who cares whose "responsible"? The fact is if someone is already using the clean power, your adding demand is going to add dirty power and only dirty power. And the emissions from that power would not be in the atmosphere if you hadn't added that demand.

Oddly, scooters are major transportation modes in many countries. And a completely autonomous mode means it can be used without a rider. Aside from being able to park itself remotely, pizza delivery? Or bike sharing?

Yes, the "pay more for green energy" has always been a marketing scam of sorts. The initial idea was that by paying more the electric company would buy more green energy. Its been a long time since that kind of encouragement was needed and the whole premise was doubtful from the start.

But that is irrelevant to determining what energy source provides the extra power needed when you add something to the grid. There is only going to be one source and it will almost always be the cheapest source still available. And from an emissions perspective the only question is how many emissions that one new source produces. The grid mix already in use is pretty much irrelevant to how many more emissions are created.

With a net 4300 foot elevation change I'm surprised they used any battery at all. Lets be clear, this was entirely a PR stunt. They chose a starting point and end point to maximize the elevation change. Regenerative braking is not all that efficient. You are better off coasting. I would think they would want a route with as gradual a grade as possible to limit braking.