Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Right. You prefer made-up bullshit accusations.

Bravo.

The bottom line is whenever I criticize China's CO2 emissions

per capita vs total greenhouse gas emissions is an argument of ethics, not facts.

Maybe it's because atmospheric levels of 400 ppm aren't a per capita issue.

Maybe it's because China's and India's CO2 emissions have grown exponentially since since AGW became a global issue.

Trying to make it all about per capita is a convenient copout. The US and Chinese economies are apples and oranges. I'm not defending our policies. But using our per capita levels for the basis of China's policies is just dumb. It's like using global per capita income to determine poverty levels in the US. It's a lousy comparison.

Here's a simple question.

Do you think China should do what is necessary to lower it's total pollution?

Here's another.

How does your answer impact the problem of global warming?

compared in a often better way.

how do you choose what is a "better way" without an ethical evaluation?

The US and Chinese economies are apples and oranges

I put the question to Mr Greenstone, a principal author of the original White House report on the social cost of carbon. He is now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and will soon head to the University of Chicago. He said:

The tricky part of carbon reduction is that when we reduce a ton, we benefit China, and when China reduces a ton, they benefit us. It’s a classic business deal. If we don’t cooperate, we’ll all be in a lesser state of the world. Cooperation in this case means accounting for the benefit we are providing for others. If one looks at international negotiations, the U.S. would not be able to show up and have much influence if we came and only talked about domestic damages. We’re also asking the world to do things that make us better off. We spent 15 to 20 years trying the other strategy which is, "You guys go first," and I think it’s not working. China and India have a pretty good case for not doing that much unless we come with something deliverable. Will we continue to have these rules if we learn that in no state of the world will China cut its emssions? Probably not. Just as in the classic prisoner’s dilemma, we’d change our postion.

if you want to compare the pollution between two countries of different size you often find it better to use the per capita number

again, define "better"
Better for whom?
The article I've just posted attempts to explain that problem and comes to a useful conclusion in my quote.
It's the classic economic conundrum: in a jail escape, which prisoner goes first?

You keep rationalizing China's (and India's and Russia's) escalation of the problem. They are responsible for over half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I'm guessing their piece of the pie is only going to get bigger. But you keep focusing on per capita and ignoring the problem.

The problem with the argument that US reduction alone won't solve the problem is that it may be true, but it's not helpful information. My personal actions have an imperceptible effect on anything global. Using the same logic, then, shouldn't I be exempt from all environmental regulation? Why should I climb clean, carry a poop tube, or stay on established approach routes? I'll make just a tiny difference.

If, as the research to date shows, human activity is making a difference, it does not follow that we should ignore what we do simply because others don't.

John

So sack up USA and lead

you can certainly levy a tariff against goods imported to the US, essentially a "carbon tariff"

The problem with the argument that US reduction alone won't solve the problem is that it may be true, but it's not helpful information. My personal actions have an imperceptible effect on anything global. Using the same logic, then, shouldn't I be exempt from all environmental regulation? Why should I climb clean, carry a poop tube, or stay on established approach routes? I'll make just a tiny difference.