3 ms·

1. I don't believe there is a monitoring system. If you sign up you agree to certain things and everybody hopes you stick to your word essentially. 2. Why does

1. I don't believe there is a monitoring system. If you sign up you agree to certain things and everybody hopes you stick to your word essentially. 2. Why does it matter what China or 'Eastern Europe' (which specific states are you referring to?) do? Adults shouldn't need to have it explained to them that just because somebody else does something, doesn't mean they should also do that. Finally regarding "dragging the US down to everyone else's level" - what level is this? I'm not sure the best way to look at the figures but, per capita at least, the US is one of the worst C02 polluters coming in at 8th whereas China is down at 55th.

panzagl 9y ago
So China emits twice as much CO2 as the US, but because they have a bunch of subsistence farmers it's ok? Sounds like the US is on the right track by increasing income inequality...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  What measure are you suggesting is a fair one that we could get other parties to agree to? You seem to be arguing that per capita isn't a fair assessment, but it is sort of the reasonable one. (it also isn't the case that reducing emissions must have negative consequences, which you imply with "drag the US down")
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  Well off the top of my head there are 4-5 times more people living in China so of course they are going to emit more. Maybe I'm missing your point?
- panzagl 9y ago
  You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita. Australia is worse per capita, but they could produce 0 CO2 and it wouldn't matter if your goal is to affect climate change.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita. What? If you reduce your emissions, you're also reducing your emissions per capita
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    With your talk about 'dragging the US down' though surely reducing emissions so that all countries are on an equal level per capita is the fairest solution? Also by reducing per capita emissions you are reducing overall emissions.

panzagl 9y ago

So China emits twice as much CO2 as the US, but because they have a bunch of subsistence farmers it's ok? Sounds like the US is on the right track by increasing income inequality...

maxerickson 9y ago
What measure are you suggesting is a fair one that we could get other parties to agree to? You seem to be arguing that per capita isn't a fair assessment, but it is sort of the reasonable one. (it also isn't the case that reducing emissions must have negative consequences, which you imply with "drag the US down")
k-mcgrady 9y ago
Well off the top of my head there are 4-5 times more people living in China so of course they are going to emit more. Maybe I'm missing your point?
panzagl 9y ago
You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita. Australia is worse per capita, but they could produce 0 CO2 and it wouldn't matter if your goal is to affect climate change.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita. What? If you reduce your emissions, you're also reducing your emissions per capita
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  With your talk about 'dragging the US down' though surely reducing emissions so that all countries are on an equal level per capita is the fairest solution? Also by reducing per capita emissions you are reducing overall emissions.