Originally posted by uzless
The world cannot expect China to be the world's manufacturing base AND cut emissions at the same time.
We are being ridiculous.
We're the ones cutting back factory jobs so WE shoudl be the ones doing the emissions cutting.
We're a bunch of hypocrites.
Yes, we're hypocrites. Agreed.
So, now all we have to do, if we're serious about cutting emissions, is to agree on a Worldwide strategy to contain emissions growth and then start reducing them. If you want to say that the developed World should reduce now, which China should merely stabilize now or even just reduce growth of emissions for X years until it can stabilize emissions and then reduce; fine. Whatever. Negotiate all of that.
But to simply leave China and India on the sidelines is a joke. Whatever we do to curb emissions won't get the job done unless China and India are in the disucssion and are factored into the effort.
Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant. If you want to save the planet and you believe that increasing emissions will do that and you concede that leaving China and India out of the disucssion will cause an increase in emissions that will dwarf any decrease that the US and Europe can effect, then that's the situation need to deal with.
BTW, to address some of the other points:
1) I have no problem with China's one child policy. On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense.
2) If you want to discourage overpopulation, then you simply cannot allocate carbon emission rights based on population alone. I would think that would be fairly obvious. Either allocating emissions by habitable area or some combination of population and habitable area would make more sense.
It's common sense that more densely populated areas, all else being equal, are going to have lower emissions per capita than less dense populations. It takes more energy to heat 100 houses than 1 house with 100 apartments. People that live in more densely populated areas are much less reliant on the automobile. To expect someone who lives in rural Alberta or Montana to live on the same carbon emissions as someone who rents a flat in a New York high rise doesn't make any sense.