Lol, I'm not sure I'd take "people jot wanting to talk with me after I gwt increasingly silly" as a victory but hey, if that makes you happy, cool?

I simultaneously care about the climate and have a reality based view of the world, which is something I don't think we share.

Have a good day.

I thought you had a typo... You're unimpressed because China has... population growth?

And yes, in the path to decarbonization, they've been explicit that it's a process. You cannot expect a developing economy to instaneously transition to a net zero economy while growing, that's an insane ask.

If you read the second article you linked a bit more closely, you'll note that they are talking about China's rapid development. It would be absurd to imagine an economy growing that rapidly could do so while keeping their total emissions the same.

Meanwhile though, how does this compare to America? What major decarbonization efforts are they undergoing? To my understanding, they are so hell bent on undoing Green projects that they are even cancelling those that Biden put in red districts in an attempt to shield them from the Republicans almost sociopathic disregard for climate change. So, in a question of whom we'd prefer on climate policy, I'm not quite understanding what the heck you're trying to say? China's not perfect but you can see a path to climate neutrality, without wishful thinking, do you see anything comparable at a Federal level in America?

Which is more of a threat, the bear actually threatening to eat you or the one an ocean away?

And to make things more interesting, which is worse for the world, the country doing their damnedest to make climate change worse or the one that has essentially single-handedly made solar power a viable alternative?

They are allowed in...

All of our proposed tarrifs are for some 150 billion, which is less than what, one sixth of Tesla's worth?

There are realities to contend with here.

Are we not adult enough to admit that there is a serious inequality and that by ourselves we don't really have the power to seriously affect the states?

I think you're maybe misunderstanding the direction of the tarrifs costs?

The tarrifs cost American importers regardless of our counter tarrifs. For an example, the article pointed to, Target which

said it expected to raise prices within days, specifically mentioning Mexican strawberries, bananas and avocados

Doesn't matter what counter tarrifs Mexico puts in place, produce from Mexico will be more expensive in America. Counter tarrifs just make things more expensive in our own country and hopefully dissuade people from buying them.

The markets aren't roiling because of reduced access to Canadian markets, it's that the stuff in their own products (like say, car parts made in Canada) overnight became 25% more expensive. (I would also be surprised if we tarrifed much in our shared industries like auto production as it'll be hard enough to keep those factories here without making them even more expensive.)

That's not to say what we do is irrelevant, we should absolutely boycott and do whatever we can to make the markets worse but it's good to do so with clear eyes.

Do you want him to lie about the sizes of our relative economies?

I think it's part of the tarrif strategy of aiming for highly substitutable goods. The goal is to inflict maximum pain on the states while minimizing harm to Canadians. So, banning American booze is an easy call because that's super replaceable with a large number of alternatives, many of which are Canadian. There aren't, as far as I know, a lot of great device alternatives that are widely adopted etc (I believe about 2/3rds of mobile devixes are Apple or Google) and I imagine the government is wary of throwing the doors wide open to Chinese devices.