Using GNP could mean that if the strenght of the dollar increased the US is suddenly polluting less. Doesn't sound fair to me.
Furthermore developing nations often get the heavy industries that are to costly to run in the rich nations. The rich nations then concentrate on cleaner services, leaving even more room for pollution from private activities. Using GNP as a measure would distort things even further since services generally generate more GNP.
Finally GNP is a rather subjective mesure, pollution isn't.
It is quite clear from the graphs in the map link that you provided, that US and Canadian citizens are emiting more than their fair share of CO2.
The idea of including the growth of forrests in the target is plainly unfair. Here in Sweden about 70% of the land is covered in forrests and we got a low population density so we could go about polluting like mad, but as I said it wouldn't be fair.
The US administration doesn't seem to be intrested in the environment at all. And most americans seem to be unintrested in doing anything that might hurt their wallets.
Without US commitments its going to be impossible to have countries like China and India agree to not reaching the same levels of emissions.
Please wake up and do something before the entire current eccosystem collapses. Change has to start now.The Kyoto treaty might be flawed but we can't wait around forever for an agreement. If a house is burning you don't stand around argueing about who's bucket to be used. Start acting on your own if you don't like the treaty but don't use it as an excuse for doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us call it democracy.
Using GNP could mean that if the strenght of the dollar increased the US is suddenly polluting less. Doesn't sound fair to me.
Furthermore developing nations often get the heavy industries that are to costly to run in the rich nations. The rich nations then concentrate on cleaner services, leaving even more room for pollution from private activities. Using GNP as a measure would distort things even further since services generally generate more GNP.
Finally GNP is a rather subjective mesure, pollution isn't.
It is quite clear from the graphs in the map link that you provided, that US and Canadian citizens are emiting more than their fair share of CO2.
The idea of including the growth of forrests in the target is plainly unfair. Here in Sweden about 70% of the land is covered in forrests and we got a low population density so we could go about polluting like mad, but as I said it wouldn't be fair.
The US administration doesn't seem to be intrested in the environment at all. And most americans seem to be unintrested in doing anything that might hurt their wallets.
Without US commitments its going to be impossible to have countries like China and India agree to not reaching the same levels of emissions.
Please wake up and do something before the entire current eccosystem collapses. Change has to start now.The Kyoto treaty might be flawed but we can't wait around forever for an agreement. If a house is burning you don't stand around argueing about who's bucket to be used. Start acting on your own if you don't like the treaty but don't use it as an excuse for doing nothing.
Good comment, why was this moderated down?