Meanwhile China's CO2 emissions will peak in 2050 - cuz, like, we have like 9 years left before we like all die

If joe plans to do this then I think he will miserably fail. Also it seems that they have learned nothing from what happened in texas earlier this year. when will they realize that green energy wont stand on its own? why not have both fossil fuels and green energy?

Everything democrats put their hands on, fails. Minneapolis defunded police and the council was left scratching their empty heads as to why did the crime go up? In every city where liberals pass out syringes to homeless, they can't seem to grasp why sidewalks are filled with shit and needles.

Biden's already went woke and full-libtard mode with the US Military, not only they're wasting their budget on surgeries for trans, but they're committed to going 'green'. No more fossil fuels. We don't the the technology yet, but we'll get rid of what we have attitude. CCP must be sitting there with their 2-inch hard on.

Why not have fossil fuels and green energy? Because that would give you a 'choice' they don't want you to have, since it's obvious what energy people would choose. Everything from now on will be forced upon us.

your claims are baloney-rich. you can have plenty of real burgers, about half of what you get now.
you (or someone) made up the number $3.5K. it's too early to know how taxes could be affected.
electric cars won't cost $55K when gas-powered are gone because technology advances.
the initiative to reduce emissions will create jobs but some workers will need to retrain.

Not my claims, but the Departments of Agriculture, so you're wrong.

Reducing emissions? More like offsetting China's emissions.
- Annually, human beings are responsible for 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. The rest comes from nature, ie, volcanos, oceans,..
- Out of that 3%, China is responsible for 1/3, US 1/4, EU and rest of Europe 1/4.
- US and Europe committed to reducing CO2 by half by 2030, bringing their total emissions to 1/4 by 2030. (if you recall certain libtarded "scientist" saying we'll be dead in 12 years - that's in 2029 - fear is the oldest tactic to control people.)
- China said it will peak their CO2 emissions in 2050, so they're nowhere near slowing down.

What's going to change? Our lives, nothing else.

- Look to Texas and California with their rolling blackouts how reliable green tech really is.
- The same people who tell us about rising sea levels are buying up beach front properties.
- Paris Climate Accord has nothing to do with fighting climate change or reduction of greenhouse gases. It has everything to do with creating another revenue stream for themselves and making 'CO2 emissions' a commodity, traded the way oil and gold is, with fluctuating prices. Factories buy CO2 credits, produce the goods, and increase prices for us consumers. But this does not stop there, if you want to mow your lawn, you'll need to purchase CO2 credits. Long story short, the guy at the bottom now pays for everything and nothing changes in terms of fight against climate change.

So, you're right, $3.5K in taxes is a made-up/projected number that will end up being a drop in a bucket.

your analysis, well meaning i'm sure, fails to take account of one small but reliable principle: I'm never wrong.

let's look at your details. first, you say that the burger claim comes from the USDA. it doesn't. it comes from a single study at U Mich funded by the USDA. so does Biden's plan call for a reduction in America's burgers? no, it doesn't. the meat industry is a major target of emissions reductions, but the idea that it will be decimated by any Biden plan is currently only the opinion of that study. logic suggests that a 50% reduction in emissions does not have to mean a 90% reduction in any single industry.

on to the emissions themselves. you're right in thinking that CO2 from human activity is only a small source of the CO2 in the atmosphere, but you're wrong in thinking that it doesn't matter. the climate depends on the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and the natural sources and "sinks" of CO2 were in equilibrium with each other before we showed up to disrupt the balance. 3% isn't a tiny number because that's an *extra* amount of CO2 that adds up over time, like interest in a bank or retirement account. so even if the 3% were stable, the CO2 concentration itself increases. meanwhile we're also busy destroying rainforest that's a major repository of natural CO2. as the forest disappears, it gets converted (slowly) to more CO2 *and* it can't trap CO2 from the air if it's not there to trap it.

China not planning to curb their CO2 emissions doesn't mean that they won't. and we can only control what we do ourselves. the idea that we shouldn't act because others might behave irresponsibly is straight out of grade school.

the rest of your argument is equally spurious. it's good that you're interested in the issue, but presenting "facts" that you saw misrepresented somewhere is not helping the discussion.