USA is quoted with 20% and china with 21% of global CO2 emissions.
However, China is not as developed as America, but has 4 times as many people. Their per capita CO2 emissions are 4 times as low as that of the average American.
If China continues to develope its industry to american levels (per capita), its emissions would at least quadruple. They still would double (at least) their emissions if compared to the average German emissions level (per capita: half of the american mark).
Now consider nations that even have not come close to the industrialisation level of china, but are considered candidates for that and have huge populations. India. Indonesia. Brazil.
If these nations become as industrialised as the West, but don't do better than we do currently in CO2 emission cutting tehcnology, CO2 emissions on a global level would go up
by several factors.
we are too many people on the world, and the living standard of the West under no circumstance could serve as an example of how all people on the globe could live and consume. we would live too excessively even if we were just 1 or 2 billion people. Consider there would be only contemporary europe and north America, with current industry and consummation levels, coming close to 1 billion in populationall in all, and all other continents would be empty of people. I think we still would erode our resources basis and erode our environment too much and would destroy our future in the long run.
Too excessive consummation levels in the West. Too many people globally. No matter how I turn things, I always come down to this coinclusion.
But all this is purely academic. what they now call a minimum consensus deal in Copenhagen is not worth to be mentioned. even the possible optimum that was tried to be achieved in the beginning would not have been anything valuable.
The issue is a serious one, and a threatening one. But unfortunately it has been adressed in unprofessional, hindering ways since years and decades - by lobbyistic politicians and economies as well as by science that performed very unprofessionally in presenting itself and its results. That means understatement as well as hysteric fear mongering. the official climate Tv spot of the conference for example imo is a total desaster, becasue it bypasses the intellect and directly appeals to sentiments - by that giving sceptics the ammo they need to load their gun. Somebody should get shot for having done this TV spot.
What's it about in the summary? Ressource consummation in the bfuture and emmissions in the future will grow, golobally, no matter wzat some nations do. Becasue the other nations will not stop to get their piece ofn the cake, too, and develoepe their industries, and the first world will become even more energy-consuming, no matter low power TV's and energy saving light bulbs. Because these things will serve as an argument why we could spend the saved energy on even more energy consuming gadgets. who wants to press citrus juice by hand (brrr, how primitive!) if there is an electric kitchen assistant with a motor available...?
Sometimes I think we need a Butler's Djihad. Let's see how many people figure out the reference here!
