Annie argues that reducing carbon emissions in the united states will take a toll on the economy far exceeding any potential environmental benefits. leo responds by arguing that several scandinavian countries produce less carbon than the united states. what fallacy is leo committing?

Leo is committing a fallacy called a red herring, which is a device in an argument that detracts the opponent from relevant issue. By saying that Scandinavian countries produce less carbon emissions than the US, he's either deliberately or inadvertently distracting Annie away from the fact that whether or not Scandinavian countries produce emissions matter, what matters in this context is that the US will receive less economical benefits from decreasing carbon emissions. By mentioning the state of Scandinavian countries, he pulling her away from the main topic at hand: effects of decrease of carbon emissions on the economy of the US alone.

Joke: i thought it said drake and josh at first answer: probably unsure about this law. depending on how long the time is.