Third world countries argue for limiting emissions on a per capita basis, which the developed world doesn't agree to. It would be meaningless to have an absolute level on emissions without taking into account the population. You should understand that China and India are the 2 most populous countries in this world.
right. but reducing emissions on a per capita basis would mean our living standards going down as china's and india's go up to converge somewhere in the middle. random numbers but instead of our average yearly income being 50k and theirs being 5k we'll all be on 10k and have just about enough to eat but not chicken and beef every day and cars and air travel. does that sound good to you because i for one am not willing to accept a reduced quality of life so that the third world can keep growing its population as much as it wants and demanding an ever bigger slice of the pie.Anything that bring us more in line with the rest of the world is a good thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
The world is not yours to consume, fat american. You are borrowing it from your children, and their children.
this person understands the issue and is honest, but don't any of you put your heads in the sand and pretend we can cut emissions without impoverishing ourselves so that africans and indians can double their population every couple of generations. The world is not yours to consume, fat american. You are borrowing it from your children, and their children.
