4 ms·

I'm not sure of this, but all that I have read on the subject seems to indicate that the US wasn't willing to go in for legally binding emission cuts either. If

I'm not sure of this, but all that I have read on the subject seems to indicate that the US wasn't willing to go in for legally binding emission cuts either. If I'm not wrong on that count, then what basis does the US have to go about trying to force other countries, especially developing countries into legally binding accords? Isn't the US the single largest polluting country? Should they not be cleaning up their own act too?

dandelany 17y ago
> Isn't the US the single largest polluting country? Actually, no. At least in terms of CO2 emissions, China replaced us as #1 in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
- chaosprophet 17y ago
  That is only on account of actual emissions in the US. What if you take the amount of deforestation in Africa every year to support the US into account? IMO the US seems to blindly insist that everyone other than itself should be punishable, while it will continue to make vague promises and absolutely rubbish the Kyoto Protocol. EDIT: Rephrased that last sentence.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just clarifying that the "official data" conflicts with your original comment. You're welcome to take that data as you wish, but it's better than the citations, or lack thereof, that you've provided. Also, how did you get from "I'm not sure of this..." to "The fact remains..."?
    - chaosprophet 17y ago
      >Also, how did you get from "I'm not sure of this..." to "The fact remains..."? My bad. I kinda assumed, since nobody was actually contradicting it. I'll edit it now.
- shawndrost 17y ago
  While this is technically true, we're indirectly responsible for much, much more than the emissions listed in that table. Back-of-the-napkin calculation: if their manufacturing industry accounts for a third of their emissions [1], and they export 25% of their production to the US (wild guess), we're indirectly responsible for another half-billion metric tons of emissions, which pushes us over them, even without considering our indirect emissions effects on other countries. [1] http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry-CO2-emissions.html http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry-CO2-emissi...
  - netcan 17y ago
    I woulnd't necessarily conclude that "consumers" rather then manufacturers are "responsible." The US exports too. OTOH, The US has been at it for much longer. They also have fewer people which should "entitle" them to less on an equitable basis.
    - thaumaturgy 17y ago
      Nah, it's a fair point, and one that neatly solves a couple of problems: if the U.S. were to be serious about reducing global CO2 emissions, then we might stop buying so much crap from China.

dandelany 17y ago

> Isn't the US the single largest polluting country? Actually, no. At least in terms of CO2 emissions, China replaced us as #1 in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

chaosprophet 17y ago
That is only on account of actual emissions in the US. What if you take the amount of deforestation in Africa every year to support the US into account? IMO the US seems to blindly insist that everyone other than itself should be punishable, while it will continue to make vague promises and absolutely rubbish the Kyoto Protocol. EDIT: Rephrased that last sentence.
- dandelany 17y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just clarifying that the "official data" conflicts with your original comment. You're welcome to take that data as you wish, but it's better than the citations, or lack thereof, that you've provided. Also, how did you get from "I'm not sure of this..." to "The fact remains..."?
  - chaosprophet 17y ago
    >Also, how did you get from "I'm not sure of this..." to "The fact remains..."? My bad. I kinda assumed, since nobody was actually contradicting it. I'll edit it now.
shawndrost 17y ago
While this is technically true, we're indirectly responsible for much, much more than the emissions listed in that table. Back-of-the-napkin calculation: if their manufacturing industry accounts for a third of their emissions [1], and they export 25% of their production to the US (wild guess), we're indirectly responsible for another half-billion metric tons of emissions, which pushes us over them, even without considering our indirect emissions effects on other countries. [1] http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry-CO2-emissions.html http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry-CO2-emissi...
- netcan 17y ago
  I woulnd't necessarily conclude that "consumers" rather then manufacturers are "responsible." The US exports too. OTOH, The US has been at it for much longer. They also have fewer people which should "entitle" them to less on an equitable basis.
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    Nah, it's a fair point, and one that neatly solves a couple of problems: if the U.S. were to be serious about reducing global CO2 emissions, then we might stop buying so much crap from China.