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 seems to be committing the fallacy of false equivalence. This fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also significant differences between them. Leo's response does not directly address Annie's argument about the economic toll of reducing emissions but rather points out that other countries produce less carbon without discussing the economic impacts on those countries or the differences between the economies and policies of the US and Scandinavian countries.

It's worth noting that there might be other fallacies or weaknesses in the argument, but based on the given example, the primary issue is that Leo is comparing carbon emissions between countries without addressing the specific point of economic impact, which was Annie's concern. Thus, without more context, we cannot say for certain if Leo has provided a logical argument or not.