[altacc]

The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

[rossdavidh]

Yeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have "committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on that, would help.

Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear debate).

[altacc]

Very good point, transparency can be beneficial. Countries and their politicians are constantly making promises and commitments which they fail to live up to.

[LinuxBender]

You are probably right. I was thinking more along the lines that national leaders have an ego, so there could be a benefit to pointing out they are inadequate.

[malka]

except that it makes no sense in game theory.

The first state to do it will see its economy shrink, and it will be bought by other who do not.

[altacc]

It's somewhat of a fallacy that green is always more expensive than other options, especially if you've already got to adhere to decent standards. Companies are finding that eco-friendly processes and green energy can be the same cost, or even cheaper, that the old processes.

Also, it is possible for a country to become greener without shrinking its economy. There's a lot of economic theory that public investment brings public and private growth. Green infrastructure supporting green industries is already profitable in many places.