Wait a second, that is a deliberately skewed metric. You suggest comparing the worst CO2 producer in China to the average CO2 producer in the west. To be fair metric, you want to compare the worst CO2 producer in China to the worst CO2 producer in the west. Say, compare the top 1% highest CO2 emitters in China to the 1% highest in the US.

If you have those measurements, I'd like to see them. Failing that, though, you would want to compare the average American to the average Chinese person. In that measurement, the average American is 1.5 times worse than the average Chinese person in terms of emissions.

Most current-generation electrical power plants (except solar and wind, of course) are gas turbines, essentially jet engines, because they are very efficient.

So why did you call out Exxon, who was not involved, and did not call out BP, who was?

So, in response to my saying Exxon isn't a big player, you point to Duke and American Electric Power. Neither one of these is Exxon. If you had used these as examples in the first place, I wouldn't have bothered to correct you.

As for Exxon supplying fossil fuels to electric producers, yes, but they're not the big player. The primary fossil fuel used in electrical power production is natural gas, and the big player is not Exxon but BP, 16 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day in the United States. Number two is EQT, a company you probably never heard of (only a third as big a producer as BP, but still producing double the amount of natural gas as Exxon, a company primarily focused on oil.)

Exxon is not and has never been the good guys, but they're only a bit player in electrical power, and most certainly are not driving the price increases.

I have nothing good to say about Exxon, but since the article we're discussing is about electrical power cost and demand, Exxon really isn't a major player (although in the future they could be.

Do tell.

Nobody is going to spend a few hundred billion dollars developing an AI model and the system to run it on, and then turn it off and not turn it back on again.

Since humans can resent, it can precisely simulate resenting.

not even close. Coal averages 2.5% sulfur. Plant matter averages about 0.25%.

Maybe. Acid rain originates mostly from sulfates that come from burning coal (which contains sulfur as a contaminant.) But a large portion of the Delhi air pollution comes from burning the crop residue in fields to prepare the land for the next planting. This most likely doesn't produce sulfates.

Not all of it, though, so some of the pollution may include nitric oxide from internal combustion engines without pollution controls, and sulfur oxides from high-sulfur coal burned in power plants, which indeed would cause acid rain.

"There is a fairly wide uncertainty around that estimate,"

Exactly. On that page the error bars around the 1.5 C figure are so large that the specific number really has no meaning,

And the error bars around the other seven global tipping points are even fuzzier,

Yow. That's a bug, not a feature.

This was inevitable.

It was idiotic to proclaim 1.5 C as a target in the first place. I suppose that there are people who advocate for setting targets that won't be achieved, on the belief that this makes people try harder, but my thinking is that setting targets that won't be achieved only defeats the purpose, by conditioning people to give up.

There was never anything particular about the 1.5 C goal, other than that it's a conveniently round number. It's slightly worse than 1.4 C, slightly not as bad as 1.6 C.

No. Not total, nor by coal use per capita
  https://www.worldometers.info/...

Not sure how that will help decrease pollution that is generated from farmers burning the crop residue in their fields to plant the next year's crop.
  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...