:/

You can find a variety of studies on this topic, I'm going to link some here.

This study addresses the argument: "democracies are more environmentally friendly". "Democracy" in this context is referring to primarily wealthy liberal democracies. Although I have problems with essentially every mainstream method of calculating democracy (lol...) the study still proves the issue of pollution outsourcing:

We hypothesize that democracies can improve their record and become “greener” not only through genuinely domestic environmental protection, but also through outsourcing environmental impacts of their consumption to other countries. Analyzing data on greenhouse gas emissions, pollution offshoring, and democracy for more than 160 countries since the 1990s, we report evidence that the offshoring of environmental pollution contributes to the superior environmental record of democracies. The main policy implication is that democracies, per se, may not have a better environmental record than autocracies when considering global environmental impacts. This implies that democratic countries, in particular, should re-orient their environmental protection efforts from merely domestic to global environmental consequences of local economic activity.

For the record, the above study uses the V-Dem dataset for "democracy". If you choose to look that up, it looks about how you'd expect: US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan are perpetually in the freedom democracy zone for the most part each year.

The New York Times posted an article on pollution outsourcing in 2018 that includes some studies:

The United States, for its part, remains the world’s leading importer of what the researchers call “embodied carbon.” If the United States were held responsible for all the pollution worldwide that resulted from manufacturing the cars, clothing and other goods that Americans use, the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions would be 14 percent bigger than its domestic-only numbers suggest.

Between 1995 and 2015, the report found, as wealthier countries like Japan and Germany were cutting their own emissions, they were also doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide they outsourced to China.

But when I say "pollution outsourcing" I am not exclusively referring to carbon emissions. I mean literally all forms of pollution are being outsourced. From Waste Colonialism: A Brief History:

Exporting trash involves more than just environmental harm; it reflects systemic inequality and a historical pattern of exploitation. The term draws a direct line between historical colonialism, where natural resources and labor were stripped from colonized regions, and the current waste trade, where the burden of environmental damage is once again pushed onto those least responsible for it.

The logic is elementary: when consumption – primarily of plastic – continues to rise, there are only two solutions to eliminate the waste: incineration or dumping. Incineration becomes the only plausible alternative if a country does not allow large-scale dumping within its borders. The problem? Incinerating plastic carries a significant carbon footprint, which most countries responsible for plastic waste are trying to reduce. As a result, some choose to avoid both options and instead export their waste elsewhere, preferably to a country with weaker waste regulations.

For years, high-income countries, especially across Europe, in the US, Japan, and Australia, have been exporting plastic waste abroad under the claim that it will be recycled, but the reality is far more complex. A report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) published last year revealed that in 2023, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France, Italy, the US, Japan, and Australia were among the top waste exporters to non-OECD countries.

For over 20 years, China was the world’s biggest importer of plastic and other waste. Since it lacked local resources, starting in the 1980s–90s, the country accepted trash from richer countries to use as raw materials for its industries. However, this mechanism led to serious pollution, health risks and illegal dumping in the country. In 2018 China banned the import of plastic waste with its National Sword Policy. Since then, Western countries have been redirecting their exports to other parts of Asia and Africa. Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines have taken up much of the imports, many arriving illegally or misdeclared. As for Africa, Ghana is slowly becoming a dumping ground, and Mexico and Peru in Latin America are following its steps.

And Hardison is like you are MISUSING my TALENTS. You are DISREGARDING the fact that I am an INTERNET MAN and my skills lay in HACKING. You DARE to ask ME to do something as MUNDANE as perfectly construct an 18th century diary, complete with all of the writing inside of it, in TWO DAYS. That is BENEATH ME and also I dont think I can DO IT and you people are RIDICULOUS and why am I even WORKING with people who dont APRECIATE me and ABUSE me so. This house is a FUCKING NIGHTMARE.

It is really not all that hard to get away with murder. A basic amount of foresight and prep will get rid of enough evidence that the police either won't find the killer or will be unable to make the charge stick.

Despite this, most murders do get solved, because someone who decides that murder is the solution to their problems is probably not the kind of person to be levelheaded and careful enough.

I think something very similar is true of sockpuppet accounts. It's not that hard to make a convincing sockpuppet. However, people almost always make sockpuppets as a way of defending their egos, of making it look like they have more support than they actually do. And this passionate defense of someone the sockpuppet ostensibly doesn't know and has no reason to care about is a dead giveaway. So if you want to validate a sockpuppet you have to lose an argument to it. You have to get owned. Once it makes you look like an idiot, basically no one will ever suspect it again.