Great for China! The point is that the OP used the all-too-common, purposefully-vague "lobbyist" argument into his rant, as if a profession (rather than the oil and gas companies for whom they work) is responsible for all the global warming problems in the world.
Further, the OP obscures the simple fact that even with large shifts in power production over the next few decades, China is, and will remain, the largest coal consumer in the world by far. And yet his suggestion is to cut off the USA, not China, from all global trading.
The oil and gas companies employ lobbyists as a means to effect policy changes (or inaction), so...well, despite your snippy attempt to clarify I'm still not sure exactly what your point here is? Yes, the oil and gas companies are the bad guys, I doubt anyone (myself or OP included) would disagree; the problem is that the tens of millions of dollars each year they spend lobbying is apparently a very effective weapon (that they probably shouldn't have) to prevent collective climate action.
And yes, the proper global action is to punish climate hogs like the US. And to be clear, once again, relatively speaking China's not a climate hog: it's inane to demand a country of 1.5 billion reduce its total coal usage to less than that of a country less than a quarter of the size before demanding the smaller country to do anything at all, and even more inane to try to punish countries who are aggressively working towards a solution (Europe, China), instead of those actively fighting against one (the US).
From some kind of top-down perspective, where you have total control over all aspects of policy in all countries, then yes, I suppose the focus should be on China. But that's not the way the global economy works; it's a game where no one country will be gladly willing to sacrifice its competitive advantage, and that's why per capita figures matter more than raw numbers.
In the first, the U.S. and China are the only countries reducing coal use in the final years of the chart. In the second, from 2015, it clearly states the U.S. reduced coal consumption by 11%. Double the reduction from Japan or Canada, 3x that of Germany.
And finally, I'm sorry it needs to be specifically pointed out -- but politicians vote on policies. Not lobbyists, not energy companies.
What does India have to do with anything? Yes, India uses even less carbon per capita than the US or China! Good for India! It'd be awesome if both China and the US could bring their carbon production per capita down to India's level, or even lower.
As for the situation in the US: the latter of your sources is conveniently from 2015, before the US elected a president who campaigned on reviving the coal industry, appointed the CEO of Exxon-Mobil to Secretary of State, pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, and has made it his daily mission to roll back EPA protections. Does this [1] sound like a government that's "aggressively reducing coal usage"? If coal usage is going down in the US, it's despite, not because of, any efforts by the current federal government. And indeed, coal specifically aside, carbon emissions in 2018 are projected to rise in the US after a steady decline since 2005 [2].
> And finally, I'm sorry it needs to be specifically pointed out -- but politicians vote on policies. Not lobbyists, not energy companies.
I mean, it doesn't need to be pointed out; we're all, despite differences of opinions, reasonably intelligent people here, and we all know about and have made up our minds on lobbying. Of course politicians write laws and vote on policies; I happen to think that if oil and gas companies are spending things like $65 million a year [3] to try to influence those politicians and the policies they make, they must have determined that has some effect. I suppose you don't, or think it doesn't matter because the buck stops with the politicians or something. I think that's naïve. But I promise we're all familiar with the ground facts, and your condescending attitude isn't really encouraging any useful discussion.
Come on dude, fine that we disagree but don't keep deflecting. You've twice given China a pass due solely to its population. India is proof that you can have well over a billion people without 4x the coal consumption of the USA. The exact thing you called "inane."
I’ve given China a pass relative to America. Bringing in some other country doing better than China to argue that America should then be given a pass relative to China is the exact thing you called “deflecting”.
Further, the OP obscures the simple fact that even with large shifts in power production over the next few decades, China is, and will remain, the largest coal consumer in the world by far. And yet his suggestion is to cut off the USA, not China, from all global trading.