[pessimizer]

> Per capita is irrelevant in this matter.

Sounds like something a country with extremely high per capita emissions would say. Somebody else would say that the imaginary line drawn around a bunch of land and given a name matters a hell of a lot less.

I actually don't worry about emissions at all because I compare my personal emissions to the emissions of the entire continent of Asia. It's not my fault that the inhabitants decided to be more than one person.

[hopelite]

What did you not understand about “per capita is irrelevant”. You make my very point and don’t even realize it though. It is an incomplete measure and a bell curve distribution relative to productivity, especially when talking about one civilization that produced all the advances and one that not only uses all those advances, but has not contributed any advances.

If you want to use per capita, you need to look at the qualities, make a qualitative determination; per capita net value, per capita quality score, etc.

Or maybe you would suggest that Europeans should start having 20+ children per woman and that will then magically improve things because their per capita measure by moronic means will improve immensely?

So get to it, Europe, have 20, 30, 40+ children per woman, because low intelligence people will then celebrate how wonderful you’ve improved your nonsense, meaningless pollution numbers.

[tsimionescu]

Every human on earth has the same right to use the planet's resources as every other human - so per capita emissions make natural sense.

Countries are just arbitrary collections of people, so looking at per-country emissions is actually entirely arbitrary. Would you say that the USA should emit no more than the Vatican?