The U.S. has reduced its level of CO2 output over the past decade or two. But, how did the U.S. manage to do so? Part of it is due to higher standards for the vehicles we drive. Part of it is from fewer miles being driven. Part of it is due to laws that force us to clean up the environment. The largest part of the reduction has come from exporting many of our dirtiest industries to other areas of the world. Much of this has gone to China. So, one can easily make the argument that the U.S. has made very little progress in reducing the global emissions. We have only spread our emissions to other parts of the world.
The basic idea is... it's not really fair for wealthy countries like the US and Europe to be using so much of the Earth's resources, and emitting so much CO2, yet telling poor countries that they're not allowed to industrialize because that would emit too much CO2.
The general idea is that wealthy countries like the US will significantly reduce their per-capita CO2 emissions, moderately industrialized countries like India and China would in essence try to keep their CO2 emissions steady (or reduce them, but they're presently emitting much less per capita than we are), and poorer nations would try not to *increase* their per capita emissions beyond what countries like India and China already have. Eventually, everywhere in the world would have something at least within shouting distance of the same per capita CO2 emissions, and from that point we could work on lowering *everybody's* emissions to the extent that we still need to do so.
Not necessarily.
Adhering strictly to the per capita approach the U.S.can cut its emissions exactly in half by altering census numbers to show double the
current population!
This manipulation of statistics was once standard practice by communist governments & may still be used by some former socialist country's.
Incidentally the U.S. is the 3rd most populous country on earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic... & has the highest co2 reduction rate of any country or region on Earth over the past 2 decades .
http://www.nationofchange.org/us-sees-gr...
http://www.bna.com/carbon-dioxide-emissi...
Well one time the world was in a stone age, now it stopped being a stone age not because there was a tax on stone, not too long ago everybody travelled by horse and carriage, and the streets were full of horse poo and city life was unhealthy and smelly, did it change because of taxes, no someone invented an automobile, lets look to the future and develop new forms of energy, because you will never stop anything with rules regulations and taxes.
There's no man-made world wide climate change. It was created by groups who discovered it was a great way to make big money by playing on peoples fears and ignorance. These environmental whores use more carbon than the average citizen, too. Go check out Al Gore's country estate and private jet. The rest jet about crying wolf while living in similar large homes and driving gas guzzling SUVs.
Bearing in mind this has Nothing to do with the Climate but is all just an elaborate pretence to rncourage wealth transfer, any way of favouring. 'Developing' countries, like China & India is welcomed. So the notion of perCapita allowance of emissions arises, and eventually the Capitas can be directly penalised for their personal contribution to this 'problem' . Carbon Capitas are ideal for applying a carbon tax to.
Just another tyrannical philosophy to scare you into giving up your liberties.
"Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family's or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not...."
"It works like a charm. A fearful people are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily."
―Gene E. Franchini, retired Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court
Does it mean that everyone in the world should emit equal amount of greenhouse gas, regardless of their economic and social conditions? Which countries favor this approach, the developed or the developing ones?
To me, this seems to be favoring the poor countries, because rich ones like the US has 4% of world pop yet emit 25% of emission. It the emission should be done in a per capita basis, US would have to cut its emission drastically, no?
