'China Has Overtaken America' (substack.com) 169
China now generates well over twice as much electricity as the United States. The country's economy has become substantially larger than America's in real terms, measured at purchasing power parity, economist Paul Krugman wrote this week. The Trump administration has moved aggressively against renewable energy development. It rolled back Biden's tax incentives for renewables through the One Big Beautiful Bill. The administration is attempting to stop a nearly completed offshore wind farm that could power hundreds of thousands of homes. It canceled $7 billion in grants for residential solar panels. A solar energy project that would have powered almost 2 million homes was killed. The administration canceled $8 billion in clean energy grants, mostly in Democratic states, and is reportedly planning to cancel tens of billions more. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said solar power is unreliable because "you have to have power when the sun goes behind a cloud and when the sun sets, which it does almost every night."
California has already integrated substantial solar power into its grid through battery storage technology. Republican support for higher education has collapsed over the past decade, according to polling data. The administration has also targeted vaccines and research in multiple areas. Krugman argues that by 2028 America will have fallen so far behind China that it is unlikely to catch up.
California has already integrated substantial solar power into its grid through battery storage technology. Republican support for higher education has collapsed over the past decade, according to polling data. The administration has also targeted vaccines and research in multiple areas. Krugman argues that by 2028 America will have fallen so far behind China that it is unlikely to catch up.
China may or may not has overtaken (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Chinese propaganda being pushed through a chinese owned website. China is hurting pretty bad because they make the solar panels and especially the wind turbines and Trump canceled the massive export of US money to buy them.
Re:China may or may not has overtaken (Score:5, Informative)
"This is Chinese propaganda"
Do a quick self-learn. The amount of solar panels China was selling to the US before exports was only around 20% of their total solar module exports. Their total solar exports are only about 7% of their total intl trade surplus. They sell as much capacity to Europe in a year as the US has installed *total, nationally*.
I'm not arguing they don't care about loss of business to the US, obviously it impacts them.
But watching the US self-elect to fall farther behind, checking of boxes down a veritable "how to" list of losing US hegemony is far more valuable to them.
In that sense - maybe it is propaganda, but reverse psychology style, because you're doing the lord's work for them.
Re: (Score:2)
First you don't think 20% of their total exports is a massive blow to their economy? Second, the US is exporting energy to Europe and pushing international policy which is reducing THEIR import of Chinese technology as well. Finally, the democrats had pushed legislation that would have triggered TRILLIONS in purchases of renewables which Trump and the conservatives have dismantled. China definitely was expecting that money.
It's important to remember that China has massive LOCAL shadow debt with massive inte
Re: (Score:3)
It's 20% of their solar panel exports, not 20% of their exports. The US was only around 15% of their exports last year, and it's going to be considerably less this year with their embargo on selling to the war industry here and Rump's tariff foolishness. If the Moron in Chief actually goes through with his claimed "plan" (whatever the hell it might be today) instead of TACOing out next year we'd probably be closer to 10% or less of their exports as our economy implodes.
Re: (Score:2)
We rely a **LOT** more on them than they do on us. Rare earth elements and magnets are just two of the key markets that they control which is hurting what industry remains in the US, much of it manufacturing war toys, there are several others that they can turn the spigot off on that would leave us in a world of hurt. Then there's their holdings of US debt, and that they're leading the rest of the BRICS+ countries in de-dollarization. Additionally just one company in China last year built more tons of sh
Re: (Score:2)
Do I think 20% of 7% of their trade surplus is a massive blow to their economy? No, I don't, because I can do basic math. The rest of your post is full of the same dumb shit you cusco of, although nobody can accuse you of not being a team player. Enjoy the ride, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
"I guess that's why Trump's approval rating is down by 15%, with only 40% approving vs 55% disapproving: https://www.economist.com/inte [economist.com]... [economist.com] . Oh, wait..."
That isn't 'down 15%', your source says UP 0.3% but it's also cherrypicked low poll on a POTUS who has consistently under polled, most polls show far more favorable ratings and his ratings have been incredibly solid. Normally a POTUS at this point has a substantial drop relative to when elected but Trump has held steady, well within the marg
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't 'down 15%', your source says UP 0.3%
Down 15% from start of term, up 0.3% this month. Fox "News" itself has Trump down 5% since term start: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
Right, except that the constitutional law experts who actually make that determination aren't you or me and it's actually your position which pisses on the Constitution and your position which is fascist.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
There's absolutely no ambiguity in the language used.
And no, it doesn't say 'consecutive terms' either.
TWO TERMS MAX.
Let's circle back to what you said:
whether the obstruction and rebellion in his first term wins him a second term in 2028 or not.
So you're saying the way around the constitutional limites is to use "obstruction and rebellion" to just...not hold an election in 2028? Yes that tracks. Look at how all those war-torn US cities (exactly what war
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not weighing in on anything else here but the article's author is Paul Krugman, a very famous American economists who has been regularly featured in US news for decades now. He in fact has a regular commentary feature in a ton of US newspapers. This story isn't coming from the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:China may or may not has overtaken (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to like Krugman when Shrub was Pres-idiot, he was one of the few who were calling out the sub-prime mortgages for what they were. Then Obama got elected and he became a typical brown nosing Washington insider, and he's stayed in that mode since. Everything a Democrat does is good and everything a Republican does is bad, refusing to acknowledge the simple fact that his chosen party is at least half as corrupt/incompetent as the Republicans if not more.
Re: China may or may not has overtaken (Score:4, Informative)
I'd care more about the vaccines part if my government hadn't tried to murder me with an experimental death injection and lied about almost everything. I'm a-ok with Kennedy's actions so far.
https://www.scry.llc/2022/02/1... [scry.llc] .
I'm laughing at the failure to recognize that COVID was the driver of those deaths, not the vaccine. That's why the overall death rate in the U.S. actually dropped by about 5% in 2022, making the increase predicted by that website rather laughably wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You shoehorn a claim with 21K vaccine deaths per month...
Come on, that's a 99.8% survival rate since those vaccines started. Vaccine denialists say that number is perfectly fine, being happy enough to plop the same number on the side of a protest sheep [xcancel.com].
Let me know when this death rate approaches the older claims where everyone would die within 2 years of taking the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels have that potential, but it requires proper use and planning to achieve it. Ditto for wind turbines. Once those get above a small fraction of the load you need load balancers. For this purpose most batteries are only short term, and you really need something that's good for weeks or months (preferably years). Pumping water uphill can work, if you've got the right situation and you plan for it. Other things can do the same job. Storage always comes with additional costs, if only in efficie
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could use it as a proxy of economic capacity, which is what it looks like is happening here.
Couple that with the slope of the line and the question about overtaking today or tomorrow or yesterday is ridiculous. Which line? You choose. Find one that refutes it.
Re:China may or may not has overtaken (Score:4)
Or you could use it as a proxy of economic capacity
It is as valid proxy as cheese consumption per population or total toilet paper rolls produced in a year. Which is dubious at best. Solar panels are only tangentially related to nation building.
Re: (Score:2)
What's being compared is: electricity generation. (period).
It is not broken down by source.
Re:China may or may not has overtaken (Score:5, Insightful)
Measuring this based on solar capacity is ridiculous
The basic gist of the article... the US is not reacting to China's ascendance with the same vigor that they did when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. In particular that the US is actively investing less in research and rejecting expertise in many domains ("we are now trapped in a reverse Sputnik moment"). The solar capacity argument is just being used as an example. He is criticizing the disinvestment in the technology - and outright hostility towards it (and science in general). In his article he also references previous articles - in particular that China's purchasing power already exceeds that of the US (essentially due to the cost of living being lower, the same GDP goes further) - so basically, China is already doing better than the US (according to him).
You can, of course, argue with his logic, opinions or even his data, but criticizing it for using solar capacity as an example doesn't seem to be a valid criticism to me. It is just used as illustrative of the problem he is discussing.
Re: (Score:2)
He is criticizing the disinvestment in the technology - and outright hostility towards it
That makes even less sense, with US pumping massively into AI (by building up compute), space tech, etc. It just Trump administration doesn't invest into green tech.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not. The US is not actively supporting AI in any way. The fact that a couple of US based companies are at the centre of it doesn't make it in any way a national policy. Even right now, under the Trump administration the green tech industry still gets more subsidy than AI, and by your own admission that's something the USA doesn't care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: China may or may not has overtaken (Score:2)
How do you, or the author know all this?
The CCP runs their information control even tighter than their mafia-clan-esque political party and have done so for a very long time. They control and manage their public image even more than they control their populations thoughts.
So all you can actually do is read the tea leaves and guess a lot. Even their housing is fake and just for a massive investment-bubble bigger than the one that haunts Japan until today; how is all this not just another gigantic F-15 vs Rus
Re: (Score:2)
It's total electrical generation. Not solar. It's also the first line of the summary, and a big 'ol graph front and centre as the very first thing in the article at the sole link.
Twice as much electricity? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they generate twice as much electricity but have almost 4 times the population as us? This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me.
Don't get me wrong though, I do think this administration is doing a lot to hurt American competitiveness, what's detailed in the summary isn't even close to all of it. I'm just not convinced at all that the twice the electrical generation as us claim is something big.
Re: (Score:2)
The point that matters is (a) the rate of change and (b) the decarbonised and lower cost source for the power
Re: (Score:3)
If that's the point then it's awfully funny it's not stated anywhere in the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
"Overtaken" happens because the one doing the overtaking is going faster.
Try clicking through to the article. There is a graph right at the top that illustrates this pretty clearly. The slope of China's power installation is way higher than for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
So "will overtake in the future" is the same as the article's claim that "China has overtaken America"?
These are two very different things and you seem to be conflating them.
Re: (Score:2)
You should take the GPs advice and click on the link.
China's electrical generation didn't just overtake the US and it certainly isn't going to "overtake in the future." It overtook around 2010. Its now about 2x and growing possibly exponentially while the US pretty much levelled off around 2010.
Re: Twice as much electricity? (Score:2)
Why is the dollar still king?
Re: (Score:3)
If you mean why is the US dollar the most common reserve currency, it's because the US made everyone send them their gold after WWII. Since then it's dropped to 50-60% and is still falling. The reason it's not lower is because the US federal government auctions off about a trillion and a half of them a year.
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot summary begins with the words "China now generates" -- you are an intelligent reader, you can reasonably infer from this that this is a new state of afffairs and that in the past China generated substantially less, and thus the rate of the change is significant. And the summary does indeed talk about low carbon power generation sources.
What's the point in being obtuse about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Their emissions are less than half the average American's too. But that's not because their quality of life is necessarily worse. For many of them it is very good and modern. It's just that they are more likely to live in a modern, decently insulated building, drive an EV, and not need to drive as far, and have access to good public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not discounting China one little bit. I just don't see how half the per capita electrical generation of the US is them surpassing us. I do think it's well within the realm of possibility of them economically surpassing us in the future, I'm just taking issue with the claim of them having already surpassed us.
"Half per capita" being what you get when a country with 4 times the people generates twice the total electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's a nationwide average, then it's quite possible that large segments *do* have more electric power available than the median US user. China has lots of rural, partially modernized, population. And there may be more people in those segments than the population of the USl
Re: (Score:2)
"Half per capita" being what you get when a country with 4 times the people generates twice the total electricity.
If the average Chinese person uses half the electricity of the average American (due to a more efficient lifestyle) then that could mean parity with the USA, even if per-capita electricity capacity is lower.
The excess electricity gets used to fuel growth. The comments here seem to focus on "AI" as the source of growth. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be true - is it an emerging industry or a bubble?
But regardless, if there is excess energy capacity, it could easily be used to fund other growt
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The US should stop comparing itself to a country that's four times as large, at least in absolute terms. However, they insist on doing so. Possibly rates and ratios were one of those educational things politicians were not in favour of.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is your electric bill? In China it averages about $7, and no, that's not a below-cost number.
Re: (Score:2)
So they generate twice as much electricity but have almost 4 times the population as us? This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me.
Rate of change matters. Anytime you look at any country in absolute terms at a single point in time for any individual metric you are lying to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
China’s energy advantage is huge.
You're not getting my point. If their per capita electrical generation is half ours (which is what you get when you combine twice our total generation with their 4 times greater population) then it sure doesn't seem that they are in a superior position to us in terms of generating electricity which is what the summary is claiming. All those people use a shit ton of electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
If their per capita electrical generation is half ours (which is what you get when you combine twice our total generation with their 4 times greater population) then it sure doesn't seem that they are in a superior position to us in terms of generating electricity which is what the summary is claiming. All those people use a shit ton of electricity.
The comparison was between nations, not individuals. Those people use energy to produce a shit ton of stuff. Having four times as many productive people would also be another huge advantage. And China also has more engineers than the USA and is creating engineers at a much higher rate.
The fundamental problem with the US getting into a trade war with China is that in the long run we will lose. We should be trying to create a strong partnership with China not starting a fight with it.
Re: (Score:2)
China permitted more nuclear plants just in April than the US/EU has built since 1970, plus they export more. Since we're not allowed under this wonderful "free trade" government to buy their technology we're probably not going to get any better at building them either.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything has to be a competition these days, huh?
Heaven forbid someone "is doing better" or "has more stuff" than ME.
That just can't stand in today's world. Useless, stupid, and totally unnecessary.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
When MAGA tells you a shrinking economy is suddenly a good thing.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently it's not a competition only when you're losing.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reason a lot of us worry is that China is a very anti democratic force in the world with clearly stated expansionist goals in terms of territory (Taiwan and a huge chunk of the South Pacific that includes other country's territorial waters). I don't think we'd be having anything close to the same concerns if this was about the EU and not China.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think the reason a lot of us worry is that China is a very anti democratic force in the world with clearly stated expansionist goals in terms of territory (Taiwan and a huge chunk of the South Pacific that includes other country's territorial waters). I don't think we'd be having anything close to the same concerns if this was about the EU and not China.
Uh, the Trump administration is staffed by a bunch of people with openly anti-democratic views and they have strong opinions on how other countries should run their affairs as evidenced by J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference. From a non-US, non-Chinese point of view, while China is anti-democratic, it is still better than the US in that China at least leaves you alone as long as you don't step on it's tail while the US will without any provocation try to force you to run your country the w
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The US had the same freakout when it was Japan, a staunch ally with a higher quality democracy than the US and nonagression written right into its constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
And the US isn't? Trump has been talking about taking Greenland and the Panama Canal, and making Canada another state. He renamed the DoD the Department of War.
Trump is ordering political prosecutions, subverting the legal system, and ruling by diktat rather than consensus.
At this point the US looks like much more of a threat to democracy than China does.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world without nations, and without hostile governments, your comment would make sense.
In the real world where we live, it's pathetic cuckery.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the comparison is important, because climate change is real. If you can have the same or better quality of life and emit a lot less CO2, even net zero, you should. And you definitely can, without it costing you much either.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries have competed against each other since the earliest records.
If we're extremely fortunate, perhaps we can keep this competition on economic grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has to be a competition these days, huh?
Not everything. ... But nations competing to become a dominant power does sort of seem like it has to be a competition.
So much winning (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure we'll pull ahead now that the restaurant prep cooks have been rounded up and sent to camps.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a fan of Darth Cheeto, but it's is a stupid take to blame him for something that is the result of 50 years of bipartisan policies. IF I was putting the headline "China has overtaken America" at the feet of any specific individual, it would be a toss up between Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The "so much winning" in that context was the idea that we would convert the Chinese into western style democracy by growing their economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be snarky but i think you need to reread the summary. The author's claim is based on electricity generation, meanwhile as the summary points out the Trump administration is canceling massive amounts of new power projects. Trump of course isn't the source of all of this problem but the claim is that he's very actively making it worse.
Of course I'm not buying the claim that China generating twice the electricity of the US means that they are now dominant to us (it just means they're still catching up g
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be snarky but i think you need to reread the summary. The author's claim is based on electricity generation, meanwhile as the summary points out the Trump administration is canceling massive amounts of new power projects. Trump of course isn't the source of all of this problem but the claim is that he's very actively making it worse.
No question about that. On the flip side, I'd argue that those power projects are corporate welfare, making the entire country pay for power generation that is used by only a small percentage of the country, for the primary benefit of a few power companies that happen to get the grants. I'm not sure that's really a good use of government resources. Power companies should pay for their own construction, or else they should have to pay back the money to the people with interest.
One of the biggest fiscal mi
So? (Score:2)
Aren't there 4 times as many Chinese as there are Americans?
Political hit piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Political hit piece. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want our tech any more, theirs is increasingly better than ours. Amazing what happens when you educate an entire population and praise smart people more than sportsball morons.
Head stuck in the sand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Head stuck in the sand (Score:5, Insightful)
Could not agree more. All these dumb comments about four times as many people, ignoring the rate of change and the low cost and low carbon power sources being deployed.
The rest of the world can only look on in dismay as the superpower competition now boils down to the smart amoral dictatorship vs the batshit dumbass proto-dictatorship determined to saw off its own cock with a rusty knife.
Re: (Score:3)
What does low carbon have to do with economic superiority? Everyone's fate is tied to the exact same global warming problem regardless of how hard they work towards resolving it You're conflating two separate issues here amongst other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Low carbon gives us a planet on which to be economically superior. It just so happens that low carbon is also low cost for power gen, and thus if you want the low cost options that generate economic superiority, you also get the low carbon options, a rather neat virtuous circle.
Articles can be about more than one thing, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the Chinese have a system of passing power between their dictators that is reasonably stable. I'm less sanguine than you about good triumphing over evil a la EE Doc Smith
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The claim is that "China has overtaken the US" not that China is rapidly catching up and might surpass us some day. You're not characterizing what's being talked about here correctly. The people you're pointing at are just disagreeing with this claim and the use of electricity generation as proof of it.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have seen the meteor coming for decades, why bother with worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1960 "made in Japan" was an insult. In 1970 it was a compliment.
"Send solar probes at night to keep them cool" (Score:5, Funny)
Almost? In the GOP Science book, Fox Jesus sometimes forgets to turn out the light because he's too busy zapping transgender people; you know, the important stuff.
Can we somehow convince MAGAs that crude oil causes autism? Is it possible to bribe a brainworm?
Re: (Score:2)
Almost? In the GOP Science book, Fox Jesus sometimes forgets to turn out the light because he's too busy zapping transgender people; you know, the important stuff.
Can we somehow convince MAGAs that crude oil causes autism? Is it possible to bribe a brainworm?
Hookers and blow/heroine?
Alternate title: (Score:3)
"Trump Administration Cedes U.S. Supremacy to China"
Re: (Score:2)
To quote myself from another comment above: I'm not a fan of Darth Cheeto, but it's a stupid take to blame him for something that is the result of 50 years of bipartisan policies. IF I was putting the headline "China has overtaken America" at the feet of any specific individual, it would be a toss up between Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The "so much winning" in that context was the idea that we would convert the Chinese into western style democracy by growing their economy.
Re: (Score:2)
The inverse is also true
He was only able to get into power because of one party's consistent partisan operations over the last 50 years, and it wasn't the guys in opposition right now.
There's a difference between blame and attribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I adjust that for you?
"Trump Administration Hands U.S. Supremacy to China on a Glass Plaque"
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not in being performatively offended, a field in which the US is recycling old material at a dramatic rate.
Do You Remember When (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do You Remember When (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn, the truth hurts. Can we not report it please?
Re: (Score:2)
Make Slashdot Great Again
Re: (Score:2)
No.
We always came here for the shitposts in the comments and gossip about reg articles. From time to time someone who actually knew the topic first hand to give a detailed breakdown out of sheer rage at the ubiquitous journalistic misrepresentation of tech work.
What exactly were you expecting from an aggregator in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to make fetch happen
Not concerned with the comparison but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't much care about comparing us to other nations, especially on things like "How much electricity do you generate" but the subtext of the current administration appearing to want to set America back 50 years in terms of innovation, renewable energy, and even social policy is troubling.
We should be investing in alternative sources of generating and storing energy. We should be investing in education and R&D. We should be welcoming the best and brightest from around the world. Instead, we're shaking our fists at the clouds and yelling for anybody who isn't a straight, white, conservative, dude to get off our lawn.
I used to think we were better than that. Now I only hope we can be.
Re: (Score:3)
economist Paul Krugman wrote this week (Score:2, Funny)
Re:economist Paul Krugman wrote this week (Score:4, Informative)
During Donald Trump's first term, the S&P 500 rose approximately 83%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 73%, and the Nasdaq Composite surged 152%.
I asked grok to verify that number.
During Donald Trump's first presidency, from his inauguration on January 20, 2017, to the end of his term on January 20, 2021, the S&P 500 index rose approximately 69.7% based on closing prices. This
Then it suggested a comparison against past presidents.
Obama is at 82% and Clinton at 210%.
4d chess indeed.
Paul Krugman (Score:3, Informative)
Krugman is a very biased partisan hack (Score:2)
On November 9th of 2016 he publicly claimed the stock markets were plunging in response to Trump's 1st election, and in projecting when the markets would recover said "a first-pass answer is never" - anybody who listened to this guy and panic-sold their stocks missed out on a great bull market as the Dow under Trump went from about 19000 to about 31000. Krugman let his personal animus towards the Bad Orange Man and his opposition to the POLITICAL policies infect his economic analysis/predictions and it pro
Yeah Right (Score:2)
And who thought it was a good idea... (Score:2)
I really want to know who thought it was a good idea to send all the jobs overseas in the pursuit of short-term profits in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Every mainstream economist in the 1980s.
2030, not 2028 (Score:2)
It'll take at least 5 years for China to pull ahead in semiconductors and commercial airliners, but otherwise Krugman's thesis is basically correct. And I hate agreeing with Krugman ...
The US will never catch up in cars, drones, batteries, solar panels. nuclear power, shipbuilding, steel, copper, aluminium, rare earths, or electricity generation.
China's Government is Better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The US is now carbon negative. It reached a max of 6 billion metric tons of CO2 in the 2000s. In 2025, we are putting out about 5 billion metric ton
That's not carbon negative. It's not even carbon neutral.
What you should be saying is that the US has passed peak carbon, but even that assumes that Trump's anti-renewables drive doesn't increase carbon output, which seems unlikely.
Meanwhile China is reducing its unit energy cost by installing lots of renewable generation.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is now carbon negative. It reached a max of 6 billion metric tons of CO2 in the 2000s. In 2025, we are putting out about 5 billion metric tons.
AHahAHAHHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Thanks for proving you know how nothing works, as if we didn't already know that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Carbon negative" would mean our country was removing more carbon from the atmosphere then it was adding. I think you mean something to the effect of "our total emissions are in decline".
Re: (Score:3)
You could just as easily have changed out the word fascism for communism and nothing would be different about your post.