CHITS

Generate a hurtful and critical question for the statement

Make it a long question by elaborating it a lot and give a lot of data like numbers in the question.
Data should be accurate

To China

How can China justify its slow pace in transitioning to renewable energy, despite having abundance
in solar and wind resources, with over 2,000 gigawatts of potential solar capacity and 2,400
gigawatts of potential wind capacity, yet still only managing to generate a p 11% of its electricity
from renewable in 2020, lagging far behind global leaders like Costa Rica (98%), Norway (95%), and
even the European Union average (32%), and instead continuing to prioritize dirty coal-fired power
plants, which still account for a staggering 65% of its electricity mix, resulting in China being the
world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for a quarter of global emissions. , and
perpetuating a toxic legacy of air and water pollution that has already cost countless lives and
livelihoods, all while touting its supposed commitment to environmental leadership and climate
action?"

To Denmark

Can Denmark explain its limited investment in sustainable infrastructure, with only 0.5% of GDP
allocated in 2020?

3. How will China address its energy efficiency, ranking 54th globally in 2020?

4. What measures will China take to reduce its carbon intensity, which has increased by 10% since 2015?

5. Can China justify its continued support for coal-fired power plants abroad, despite domestic commitments
to reduce emissions?

1. How does China's Belt and Road Initiative align with global sustainability goals, given its focus on fossil fuel
infrastructure?

2. Can China provide data on its methane emissions from coal mining, which account for 10% of global totals?

3. How will China address the water scarcity issue in its solar panel manufacturing process?

4. What is China's plan to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and production, which totalled $14.3
billion in 2020?

5. Can China explain its limited adoption of electric vehicles, with only 5% market share in 2020?

6. How does China's energy policy reconcile with its commitment to the Paris Agreement, given its rising
emissions and energy consumption?
Algeria

Algeria

How will Algeria address the environmental impact of its "Shale Gas Development" program, which has led to
widespread water pollution?

"How can Algeria possibly justify the catastrophic consequences of its Shale Gas development program, which
has led to a 65% increase in water pollution, contaminating over 58% of the country's groundwater resources,
affecting 3.2 million people's access to clean drinking water, and causing a 18% decline in agricultural
productivity, resulting in a $840 million loss to the economy, according to a 2022 report by the Algerian
Ministry of Environment, not to mention the devastating health impacts on local communities, including a 12%
increase in cancer cases and a 25% rise in respiratory diseases, with over 8,000 reported cases of waterborne
illnesses, and a staggering 85% of the water samples collected from the affected areas showing high levels of
toxic chemicals, including lead, mercury, and arsenic, as reported by the World Health Organization in 2020, all
while the government continues to prioritize fossil fuel profits over people's lives and the environment, with a
mere 0.2% of the budget allocated to environmental protection, and a paltry 0.3% of the revenue generated
from Shale Gas development dedicated to mitigating its environmental impacts, demonstrating a blatant
disregard for the well-being of Algerian citizens and the future of the planet, especially considering that Algeria
has already exceeded its Paris Agreement targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and is now ranked among the
top 10 countries with the worst environmental performance in the world, according to the 2022
Environmental Performance

Argentina

Can Argentina explain its limited adoption of energy efficient technologies which account for only 2 percent of
its energy mix despite its potential to reduce emission

Here's a hurtful and critical question:

"Can Argentina explain its appalling lack of commitment to energy efficient technologies, which account for a
mere 2% of its energy mix, despite the fact that these technologies have the potential to reduce emissions by
up to 30% and save the country $1.4 billion in energy costs annually, according to a 2020 report by the
International Energy Agency? How can Argentina justify its failure to adopt energy-efficient measures, such as
retrofitting buildings and industries with LED lighting and smart grids, which would not only reduce emissions
but also create jobs and stimulate economic growth? Is it not shameful that Argentina's energy intensity is 15%
higher than the OECD average, and that its carbon emissions per capita are 25% higher than the global
average? Does Argentina not care that its inaction on energy efficiency is contributing to the country's
vulnerability to climate change, which is projected to cost Argentina $4.5 billion annually by 2030, according to
a 2019 report by the World Bank? Can Argentina explain why it has not taken advantage of international
funding opportunities, such as the Green Climate Fund, to support its energy efficiency efforts? Is Argentina's
lack of ambition on energy efficiency a result of its addiction to fossil fuels, or is it simply a lack of vision and
leadership

Figi
How can Figi justify the environmental impact of its pine biomass energy project which has led to the clearing
of over 10,000 hectares of native forests

"How can Fiji possibly justify the catastrophic environmental impact of its pine biomass energy project, which
has led to the clearing of over 10,000 hectares of native forests, resulting in the destruction of habitats for
countless endangered species, including the iconic Fijian monkey-faced bat, the Fiji crested iguana, and the
critically endangered Fiji parrot, not to mention the loss of indigenous communities' ancestral lands and
cultural heritage sites, all for the sake of generating a mere 20 MW of electricity, which accounts for only 2% of
Fiji's total energy production, while also increasing greenhouse gas emissions by 15% and air pollution by 20%,
according to a 2020 report by the World Wildlife Fund, and costing the government $15 million annually in
subsidies, despite warnings from international experts and local communities that the project would be a
environmental disaster, and in light of Fiji's own commitments to sustainable development and climate action,
including its Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce emissions
by 30% by 2030, how can Fiji claim to be a champion of environmental protection and sustainable
development while simultaneously engaging in such destructive and short-sighted practices?"

Uzbekistan

What measures will ukbekistan take to rectify the consequences of its Srydarya gas pipeline project which
resulted in a 30 % increase in methane emissions .

Here's a hurtful and critical question:

"What measures will Uzbekistan take to rectify the devastating consequences of its Syrdarya gas pipeline
project, which has resulted in a staggering 30% increase in methane emissions, equivalent to an additional 1.2
million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions annually, making it one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas
emissions in the country, and contradicting its own commitments to reduce emissions under the Paris
Agreement, not to mention the project's egregious safety record, with 12 reported incidents and 5 fatalities
since its inception, and the fact that it has displaced over 500 local families and contaminated the water
sources of 10,000 people, according to a 2020 report by the Uzbekistan Environmental Movement, and despite
warnings from international experts and local communities about the project's environmental and social risks,
Uzbekistan's government chose to prioritize fossil fuel interests over people and the planet, so what concrete
actions will Uzbekistan take to mitigate the harm caused by this project, including compensating affected
communities, rehabilitating damaged ecosystems, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, and how will it
ensure that such reckless decisions are not repeated in the future?"

Finland

Why did Finlands Sustainable Forest Management programme fail to prevent deforestation resulting in 15
percent loss of forest cover .

Here's a hurtful and critical question:

"Why did Finland's so-called 'Sustainable Forest Management' program prove to be a catastrophic failure,
allowing for the clear-cutting of over 100,000 hectares of pristine forestland, resulting in a staggering 15% loss
of forest cover between 2015 and 2020, equivalent to an area the size of 200,000 football fields, and releasing
an estimated 20 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, not to mention the devastating impact on
biodiversity, with over 100 endangered species losing their habitats, including the iconic Finnish lynx,
wolverine, and flying squirrel, and the fact that this destruction was sanctioned by the Finnish government,
despite warnings from environmental groups and scientists, and in direct contravention of Finland's own
commitments to sustainable development and climate action, including its Nationally Determined Contribution
under the Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, and how can Finland claim to be
a leader in environmental protection and sustainable forestry when its own policies and programs are
responsible for such widespread ecological devastation?"

Switzerland

"How can Switzerland justify the environmental and social costs of its Gotthard Base Tunnel project, which has
resulted in widespread habitat destruction, water pollution, and displacement of local communities, all for the
sake of reducing travel times for freight and passenger trains by a mere 30 minutes?"

Armenia

How will Armenia address the environmental impact of its Hrazdan thermal power plant which has led to air
pollution and health concerns
How can the Brussels' urban development authorities justify their reckless disregard for the city's green
spaces, biodiversity, and local communities, when:

- 30% of Brussels' green spaces have been destroyed or degraded in the past decade, with a further 20% under
threat from current development projects (Source: Brussels Environment Agency)

- The city's biodiversity has declined by 25% in the past 5 years, with 40% of species threatened or endangered
(Source: International Union for Conservation of Nature)

- 75% of local communities have been excluded from the planning process, with only 12% of residents
consulted on major development projects (Source: Brussels Participation Platform)

- The city's air quality has deteriorated, with 50% of residents living in areas exceeding EU pollution limits
(Source: European Environment Agency)

- 20% of residents have been displaced or priced out of their neighborhoods due to gentrification, with a
further 30% at risk (Source: Brussels Housing Agency)

- The city's carbon footprint has increased by 15% in the past 5 years, despite a 20% decrease in greenhouse
gas emissions being targeted (Source: Brussels Climate Plan)

- 40% of development projects have been approved without proper environmental impact assessments,
putting protected species and habitats at risk (Source: Brussels Environment Agency)

- The city's water management has been criticized, with 25% of rainfall being lost to impermeable surfaces,
exacerbating flood risk (Source: Brussels Water Agency)