I personally don't like the argument that another country isn't doing something so we shouldn't. It deflects responsibility and is something that maybe a my 10 year old would use as an excuse (but Alice doesn't have to do that).
India also has very laid back work rights and safety rules ... should the USA follow those laws or approach it from the perspective of best practices (irrelevant if another country does it or not)?
In reference to 'controlling' emissions a large shift in culture would have to require, a large committment by governments to invest in alternative resources and infrastructure. The cost to government is the biggest hurdle ... and 'change' (as any change be it from paper to computers) is a huge problem. At the moment politicians and scientists are trying to lead the 'change management' but really neither are in a position to assist with the change required. Both can help drive the change, but the overall strategy is lacking and hence for the stalling in many countries.
As long as government is owned and operated by the people who produce CO2 as a by product of making massive amounts of money NOTHING will be done. The end game is what science has already told us... The oceans will reach a CO2 saturation level, the ice will melt, ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream will turn right a thousand miles sooner freezing the @ss off of Europe. The Indian Monsoons will be history and the western US will be the Gobi desert. The coastal areas of the world on the western side of the oceans will be flooded because prevailing winds will stack up water there...and there will be a lot more water because of melting ice and thermal expansion. But until it happens...don't worry, be happy.
LOL, Love the logic Linlyons. Perhaps we should have big daddy gov't make us stop buying things we want as well. OR. We could tax ourselves so much that our economy tanks, and we can't purchase things. Why then we would live in some utopian paradise where the poor struggle, there is no middle class and the rich "elite" are kind enough to tell us exactly what we should and should not do.
We will probably spend another 5-10 years trying to figure out how to control CO2 levels. It's like a privledge being able to watch the effects of global warming on Earth.
The best way to help the developing world is to get energy to the poorest people without having to develop massive infrastructure to do it. That means onsite power, which means renewables such as solar, wind, garbage methane, and perhaps small nukes. Look at what cellphones with solar charging have done for African economies as an example.
Just because other countries will not stop does not mean that the USA should also contribute. There are other forms of energy can be used like wind and solar
@linlyons: "If we stopped buying what they're using all that energy to make, then they'd stop producing all that CO2."
That's the most asinine statement you've ever uttered. By a long shot.
Actually... if we start using solar, wind, and the like, manufacturers of those things will get better, and there will (eventually, at least) be cheaper renewable power sources. At some point, they will become inarguably cheaper than fossil fuels. At which point those poor countries, like India, can start using solar, wind, biomass, and so on instead of burning coal. And everybody wins...
If we stopped buying what they're using all that energy to make, then they'd stop producing all that CO2.
BTW, mintie_boy is right on. Twice.
The developing world is increasing CO2 emissions at an acelerating rate
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/ed-hoskins-analysis-of-the-record-of-fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-1965-2013/#more-17748
Obviously they have no intentions of stopping or slowing, do we even have a right to ask them to, considering there more people in India who have no access to electricity than the whole population of the USA these people cook and heat by burning wood and animal dung with enormous damage to their health.
