| I am not sure that 'dividing' amount of pollution a given geographical region produces, on to number of people there -- is the only righteous and effective measure of international accountability). In my view, measuring delta in total greenhouse gasses produced, would a better measure for international accords, and their subsequent corruption-free enforcement. This is why I brought the pollution-per-mile vs pollution-produced analogy. With regards to > "The amount of emissions correlate strongly to that pursuit of happiness at least for now..." I think, you are also averaging out to-per-capita that, might not be appropriate... Say there is energy-demanding and mineral demanding manufacture process, that causes deforestation, pollutes rivers, mows down beautiful mountains to get coal, produces lots of green house gasses. You are claiming that this benefits, at least, economically, 'every' per-capita person on that country. But if same manufacture used more renewable energy, and produced more expensive goods. Would the 'per-capita' be worst off? Perhaps it would not be. Right? In other words, we really need to measure what that manufacture is doing. And that's why I think measuring changes in pollution (due to changes in policy of a given country), and changes in preservation of natural habitats -- is a much more effective way to measure policies of governments. Another way to look at it is this way: Performance indicators should be relevant to the individuals or institutions that are actually accountable for the execution of what's being measured. In this case, we are measuring government policies, not individuals. Therefore dividing per capita, should not be used as 'first-order' measure. |