And if we do a "per capita" approach, the difference is about 4x less.

If anything, regardless how things get spun, the United States is obligated to take a leadership role in this.

And leading means going first.

_

If we can prove it to be successful, then China will follow.

-David Ahlport

(meant as a political satire, don't take it personnally)

the climate talks in Bali are running down, China is pretending it is an impoverished nation still and the good old USA is threatening ( in a very nice way - haha) to pick up it's pretty marbles and go home.

WHAT a drag for all of us here on planet earth; slanted articles don't help!

Has he said or written that China is as bad as the US at other times?

Funny.

What do 1892 emissions levels have to do with

Because for the most part those emissions are still up there.

History didn't just start in 1990.

-David Ahlport

China and the US have the biggest emissions today so that's where the conversation belongs unless you have a time machine. What would have been the point of Gore giving the US a guilt trip over its historical emissions levels?  

This isn't to say that any party to negotiations is going to be happy with the way their "responsibility" for mitigation is defined, but this is not a moot point.

Today China and the US are the two biggest contributors so both need to reduce emissions. Letting China off the hook because of past sins by the US doesn't help solve the problem.

If you want to make any conclusions from the charts its that Americans have to make more changes in their personal lives than Chinese. In China the government has more responsibility than the average Chinese citizen.  The Chinese government is perfectly capable of not building more coal power plants.

That's my point. The chart above is useful if you're interested in playing the blame game. Its not so productive if you want to solve the problem.

As Gore said, we need to stop pointing fingers and do something. All nations have to do something because we all suffer the consequences if they don't.

These graphics are especially misleading, because there is no carbon uptake within the specific areas considered. Historically, Canadian forests have been a net sink for carbon, which may be changing now. US forests have become a HUGE sink at about the end of 19th century to the tune of 10-13% per annum STILL, despite an increasing CO2 output in the most recent years, and a decline in C uptake. So, while I don't argue that USA/Canada is a greater culprit, these disparate graphs would look much more similar.

As Gore said, we need to stop pointing fingers and do something.

But thats my point.

China/India aren't going to do anything unless the United States goes first.  It's just not happening any other way.

They have neither the means, nor sense of responsibility to do so.

So the only way any action is going to occur is if we show some leadership, and go first.  Doing otherwise is going to mean that NO AGREEMENT and NO ACTION will occur.

Whats more, oddly the United States is an economic role model for China/India.  If we can prove that developing green can be economically worthwhile, then they will do it.

-David Ahlport

So, therefore, when America was the industrial center of the world and everyone bought our products, therefore, the entire world is responsible for all that pollution.

We can only be responsible for total domestic consumption, not total production.

However, history will definetly point to American culture of cars and mass consumption being exported.  There's also the self-interest of Midwest America to look at.

Take Illinois, for instance.  If a country, it is 5th in the world in generating nuclear power, as a state, it is #1 in CO2 from burning coal.  
Now it possibly may be a supporter of L-W (hold your breath).  It currently produces next to 0 renewable energy.  Thank good will, now that it changing.  They put up a wind turbine next to the new coal plants in the capital to show how green U.S. is.  Something for China to strive for.

Coal industry front group brags about access to Obama/Oprah event

http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2007/12/coal-industry ...

   Everyone said to him, please stop eating so much.

   He gathered five very skinny men around him, and said, these five guys eat as much as I do.  I will go on a diet and lose weight if they do the same.  Otherwise it's not fair.

   The US is the fat guy.  China is the skinny guy.  It is not only about historical CO2, it is about per capita emissions.  China is way behind the US.  Because it's population is five times larger, of course, it looks worse in absolute numbers.

   Americans who don't want to address the issue, cling to those absolute numbers like a lead life preserver.  But the rest of the world sees that this is unjust.

   After all, no is saying that absolute American emissions have to be reduced until they are the same as Luxembourg's.

   But you all already knew this, didn't you? (smile).

patrick in Beijing

The lesson here is that, while we've had time to slow our output down some, China has become so industrialized so quickly that it hasn't reached the front-burner until recently, so they need to act fast if they wanna avoid a total catastophe.  And since the catastrophe may very well extend beyond their borders, we haveta keep up the pressure on them to slow it down, and help them mitigate their growth with respect for the environment.

If not now, then when?

The time has come for you to run for the US Presidency again.  Afterall, you won the job once already. This may be the remaining unfinished work of your life.

The United States was meant to lead the world in our time.  Admittedly, things have not gone well recently; however, no other country has the wherewithall to do what is necessary.

People around the world are looking to the United States for moral leadership, but apparently see our country as a woefully inadequate exemplar today.

As you put it, since "we have to travel far quickly," there is not time to waste....no sensible reason for waiting.  

All the current presidential candidates in the USA are not talking about the real issues of our time.  You and you alone can "re-center" our national debate on issues like the unsustainability of increasing conspicuous per-human over-consumption of limited resources; the unsustainability of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers; and the soon to become patently unsustainable, seemingly endless growth of large-scale industrial/corporate activities, now threatening to engulf the surface of the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit and, I suppose, not to overwhelm.

How can we help?

Sincerely,

Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

   Generally, losing candidates fail the second time around (Nixon being the exception).

   So, he won't run.

patrick in Beijing

       Please go read the post by James Hansen if I am not enough to convince you that per capita matters.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/9/212811/580

patrick in Beijing

besides who funds all those new coal plants in china?  Corporations like Walmart, they pay the electric bills in the factories that make all that cheap crap we consume here.

So a large part of China's GHG is produced in turning out stuff sold here.  The enemy?  I've seen them, they are US. (pogo RIP)

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Of course per capita matters, I didn't (believe/think) that I implied otherwise.  Sorry if you interpreted it that way.

However, since we're on the subject, both per capita and net output should be taken into the overall equation.

Just because one country's per capita output is lower than another's, that doesn't mean that they still shouldn't try to lower their net output.  Likewise,  just because one country's net output is less, that doesn't mean they can't try to lower their per capita output as well.

It needs to be afine balance, with cuts across the board, both in per capita and in net reductions.

   Current comparisons between China and the US on a national level are as useful as comparisons between the US and Ecuador on a national level.

   Which means not at all.  If we want to talk about warming beyond our borders, we should use language and concepts that all agree to be fair.

   Per Capita CO2 usage is both.  National usage is neither.

   Everytime we make this comparison in a way that is unfair, we both discourage those in developing countries (who face a far more difficult struggle) and encourage Global Warming Deniers (those who want to do nothing).

   Blaming developing countries has been George Bush's excuse for not signing on to Kyoto.  It is just that an excuse, and those who care about the environment should beware before signing on that argument.

   Because it is the path to doing nothing.  Or is that where we want to go?

patrick in Beijing

The point isn't who has to do something before everyone else does something. If we don't ALL do EVERYTHING possible to reduce emissions and also sequester existing atmospheric carbon at a war footing pace we are screwed as a civilization.

The whole 80% by 2050 goal is so far behind recent changes that it's pointless to argue. We need to be looking at emissions reductions on the order of 110% by 2030. That's zero emissions and finding some means of securing atmospheric carbon at the same time.

Anybody who thinks the planet is going to keep us all fat and happy without polar ice caps please take a look at trends in global grain production. It's not good.

America needs to cut it's emissions to zero. And we need to do it first.

Put the Carbon Back

In a remarkably timely fashion, it appears we will hear something from representatives of the masters of the universe afterall. This time the message comes to us from a group of denialists and naysayers who are evidently being forced by circumstances in Bali to make a "have the courage to do nothing defense" of their predominant position in the world as a way of defending their benefactors' non-negotiable, only right way to live.

Perhaps this duplicitous rear-guard action against necessary change is perpetrated by representatives of the wealthy and powerful, and others who find riches, power and privileges to be all that really matter, come what may for our children, biodiversity, the environment, for Earth as fit place for human habitation, and for the future of life as we know it.

Hear ye, hear ye, words from representatives of the "Masters of the Universe" in my not-so-great, "What's in it for ME" generation of elders.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

China's climate contribution, both per capita and as a whole is greater than the one suggested by the graph due to land clearing, agricultural output and northern desertification, while USA climate contribution is less due to a strong, and persistent forest and forest sector C sink.

Furthermore, I agree with jabailo, it is senseless to consider 'exportation' of consumptive C production. US products are consumed globally, as well as China's.

Further, why are Japan and South Korea not included in the above rubric? These nations, located in the same region, have been pumping out C due to a strong economic sector for a longer period of time than China, and should be included over Vietnam, North Korea, and Mongolia. Who thought of that: let's include a larger land base with little economic output to increase the overall land area. Why don't we focus on Siberia or Luxembourg for that matter and claim that this is what we should strive for.

These graphs are misleading at best, poor pseudo-scientific bullshit done via cherry picking aimed at influencing public policy in reality, and criminal at worst (clearly neither the best nor worst scenario apply here). Is this the way that Sightline Institute conducts studies?

I get your point, the US has put out drastically more per person and over time. Our moral obligation for this is overwhelming.

Yet, your journalism here is sad. This is the most narrow of focus but you present it as the big picture. The picture here is that we are running out of time. And total global emissions matter. All the data suggest now that China is equal or above the US in TOTAL GHG emissions. Again, I understand they have both lower per capita and historic emissions. But figure it out, that total number is still there, and if the whole world doesn't get together to reduce it, it won't matter what moral accounting tricks we apply to try to shirk responsibility. Yes, I care about our moral obligation. But grok this, the climate doesn't.

wiserearth.org/user/danielbell

   Atreyger, do you have any numbers to support you?  Both Eric and James Hansen provide data, you are only making assertions without any supporting facts so far.  The Chinese government is spending a ton of money on planting trees, fwiw.

   Why does per capita matter?  Because it shows the broader picture, which is what the world is interested in.  That Americans deny it is no surprise, it is natural, just as it is natural for many Americans to deny that global warming is even happening.

   The advocates for using a strict national basis, end up supporting the do-nothing policies of George Bush.  This puts them in the same political camp as the global warming deniers.  

    The question is whether you want to really do something about global warming or are you just looking for an excuse to do nothing?  From here, it smells like the latter.

    (And if it wasn't China, the ohmigosh, Burundi isn't making hardly any progress at all!!).

patrick in Beijing

I guess I've also seen enough of right wing talk radio types nit-picking Al Gore's statements to death to make him look like a liar. Do I have to see that here too?  Gore's statement was factually correct in terms of today's current output, which is what he was talking about.  

On the question of moral and financial responsibility, clearly and obviously the U.S. bears the greater share, but that's no reason for any other country not to act.

grist.org

http://understory.ran.org/2007/12/11/we-have-a-purpose-we ...

Lorna Salzman

   Or they can average their emissions with Bill Gates and subtract the amount they need to reduce by to reach that of a Bangladeshi peasant, then reduce accordingly.

   Per capita certainly does matter.  Any attempt to ignore it will lead to NO progress at all.

   The reason so many Americans don't want to hear this, is that to accept it would be to take responsibility for the damage caused by our country.

   Apparently, many people are not willing to face up to that.  Too bad.

patrick in Beijing

       One of the reasons Al Gore is wrong, is that he said that China is using the US as an excuse for doing nothing.  Not true.  Perhaps China is trying to pressure the US into doing SOMETHING!!  If it is okay for the US to pressure China, why can't they pressure us?

       Nor is it true that China is doing nothing.  It is objecting (as ALL developing countries do) to national caps on reduction that would leave it in a situation where there is no chance of lifting people out of poverty.

       The US has the money to change this.  America should put it's money where it's mouth is.

patrick in Beijing

However, if you are unconvinced, and prefer to not pay, look up Woodbury, Smith and Heath (2006) publication in Forest Ecology and Management, Brown and Schroeder (1999) Ecological Applications publication, Caspersen, Pacala and others (2000) Science publication.

I bid you adieu

   Dear Atreyger,

        It's not that I mind the money, if I had it (okay, it's a month and a half's salary), but do you take RMB?

        Alas, I don't have access to all of these journals, will try to find the 2006 cite.

        But, you should pay attention to how quickly things change in China.  Starting about 2002 (around when I arrived), the government began a massive re-forestation program (using both local money and some from the world bank).  So, cites from even eight years ago, much less ten, are unlikely to show the current status in China (good or bad).

        I understand you have neither the time nor patience to do research (smile) for free.  But without any kind of links that I can trace, how can I find out whether I agree with you or not?  Or argue?

        But here is the final key.  

        Per Capita CO2 production matters (and the US might have to be charged with that produced by it's overseas military bases).

        None of the developing nations in the world will agree to essentially freeze their economies in place at a level where large segments of their populations live in poverty.

        They won't.  They can't.

        So, the demand that they cut back on absolute emissions when their per capita level is so much lower than the developed countries is a no go.

        The Europeans seem to get this.  Some Americans do, but alas, none of us are in government (smile).

patrick in Beijing