Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait for more data to come out to see if the end is a blip or a real change.

With the growing demand of data centers it kinda feels like it will continue to increase.

So, is it easier to change the behavior of 3500 people who can do whatever they want, 340 million people most of whom have some choices in their lifestyle, or 1.4 billion people of whom about half are just doing what it takes to survive?

And because total emissions matter, we all have a bigger responsibility to reduce our per-capita output if we're above others. The atmosphere and climate don't care about countries, so each American still has a much higher responsibility to change their society than each Chinese does.

I was going more for the absurdity of a single person emitting more CO2 than a township of 150,000 people, plus the underutilization / hoarding of this imaginary construct: money by the people who have more than they need - as you allude to.

I also agree: the price of things does frequently correlate with CO2 emitted. Even when you hire someone for a service that emits virtually no CO2, what do they do with that money? Turn around and spend it on things that do emit CO2. Much of the cost of goods has to do with the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver the good (again cost correlating with CO2 emissions).

The only "industry" I can think of that moves significant money around without generating CO2 directly is finance, though when the money quits running through finance's internal spin-cycle and finally hits the real world, it's again purchasing the relase of CO2.