They certainly don't have any facts to go on.

With no facts to justify it.

As you yourself have admitted.

So what prevents them from seeing the facts?

You answer it.

to ask what about the non-environmentally conscious theists.

I do so enjoy how you humiliate yourself.

I didn't ask "what about" the anti-environment movement, I noted that they too use faith. So that the OP's point about "faith-fueled" motives is multi-faceted. I didn't change the subject, I stayed right on topic.

You, however, pivoted and asked WHATABOUT the Chinese government. Nothing to do with the OP.

I'm convinced at this point you enjoy the embarrassment.

Not only is China today the world’s largest producer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles, but it has also been the top investor in clean energy for nine out of the last ten years, according to the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. Since 2014, Chinese equity investment has supported a total of 12,622 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar projects in South and Southeast Asia alone, according to new research by Greenpeace. That’s the equivalent of 21 standard coal plants or enough to power New York City. The shift from simply exporting to bankrolling green tech—driven by both a drying up of domestic subsidies in China and new incentives to invest abroad—is a boon since “it means China really cares about the future profitability of each project,” says Greenpeace campaigner Liu Junyan.

unlike thefaithful Christains who run our Government.

industrial capacity and the standard of living of their citizens to bring them up to western standards and balance how they do that against environmental concerns. So there are compromises and they cannot just rely on green tech.

Nuclear power has its own issues but it is not contributing to global warming.

These compromises might be fatal to solving the issue, but yes, these Chinese atheists are behaving in the same way as their theistic climate deniers.

should pay for the damage the west has done by sacrificing the economic development?

Seems fair to me.

Not.

to "catch up" in polluting? That sounds insane.

As noted upthread China is doing what it can to build out a green infrastructure. But it also has to rely on fossil fuels, as do all other developed economies.

Your assertion upthread that “ The Chinese atheists who control their Governemnt are very anti-environment.” is obviously nonsense, they are investing in green technologies and sustainable energy systems.

China’s per capita ghg emissions are less than half of ours. What the fuck are our pious leaders doing? Oh right, nothing.

Reading is difficult.

Assuming that you read that, what is so difficult?

Me, post 31: "China’s per capita ghg emissions are less than half of ours. "
You, post 32: "It would be better if your assertions were true, however, China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions"

You appeared to not understand that I was referring to per capita ghg emissions, otherwise your reply made no sense.

Me: post 33: "Per capita: half. Reading is difficult."
You post 35: "China tops world for air pollution and carbon emissions, officials admit Assuming that you read that, what is so difficult?"

The part where you still don't seem to understand the difference between 'per capita' and 'total population'.

Do I have to explain it? Here:

"What Is Per Capita?
Per capita is a Latin term that translates into "by head." Per capita means the average per person and is often used in place of per person in statistical observances. The phrase is used with economic data or reporting but is also applied to almost any other occurrence of population description."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/percapita.asp

I’m not sure which is worse.

You seem to think it does.

And a self-awareness vacuum as well.

But I understand your reasons for not wanting to answer the question.

No one should ever make the mistake of thinking that guillaumeb is looking for sincere dialog and discussion.

so you could pursue your "theists are bad" meme.

And your continued misunderstanding of the whataboutism logical fallacy is evident.

But you whatabout you. It's all you've got.

The subject was speaking about faith as a motivation for positive action.

And you immediately tried to change the subject, which is an essential component of the whataboutism fallacy. The need to change the subject.

Completely on topic.

An ACTUAL example of whataboutism would be shifting to the topic of the Chinese government.

You know, like you did.

But do carry on.

But I understand the need here by some few to promote a meme.

on the facts.

But that has never deterred you in the past, so carry on.

That can be problematic.

But I hope to soon.

but will for sure....