[constantcrying]

If climate chage is threatining all life on earth it should be a priority that all countries reduce their CO2 output. Or at tge very least that they do not drastically increase their output evefy year, as China does.

"You can pump as much CO2 in the atnosphere until we reach per capita parity, then you must reduce it as well" is an absurdist stance to take. Nobody who takes climate change seriously can believe that.

[atoav]

Yeah, but this is a game theoretical problem. Let's assume this: the rich per capita emitters say we should look just at absolute number (a metric that by pure coincidence makes them look better) and the worst absolute emitters say we should look only at per capita emissions (a metric which coincidentally makes them look better).

The issue there is that both are right in a certain way. We need to get the absolute emissions down, but to do so fairly the worst emitters per capita should commit to the biggest savings.

Now if both stiffly insist on their position we end up worse off in the long term than if one just gave in.

[Ekaros]

It is horrible that country like USA doesn't aim at extremely fast pace to get it's emissions to same level than some other countries. Let's say Congo. They could easily force these changes to their population, but no...

[constantcrying]

Yes. This is really simple, I am sure that the population will be readily convinced to drastically reduce their living standards. You just need some dictatorial power, easily done.