Climate change... Much ado about nothing?

I can think of no source more authoritative.

On the face of it, this shows a conflation between different entities: the individual vs country. It is one which seems to regularly occur, and which frequently ultimately ends up leading to a 'justification' for not taking any responsibility for change. 

I'd argue it is a standpoint that simply doesn't stand up to meaningful analysis, and is morally/ethically questionable. 

Countries are just collections of people. In what way does it make any sense  to compare the gross GHG impact of a "country" with a population of say 800m with that of a country of 80m, and use that comparison to argue that 'its nowt to do with me' ? What if that country of 800m was then divided into 10 separate countries? 

Here is one set of data. Not the most uptodate, but 2019. Its CO2 per capita:

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Leaving aside the top 6 which are all significant oil/gas producing rich states, the next 4 after that are Canada, Luxembourg, Australia, United States. So basically the top 10 are either major producers of fossil fuel, or they are rich developed nations (the latter being big consumers of the output of the former, just to add to the picture). So no 'developing' countries there then. The 'rich developed' nations in the above have an output ranging from 15.4 to 14.7 tons per capita. The people of India on the other hand have a per capita output of 1.8 tons. That's about 12% of the averaged per capita output of those other 4. 12%

Pakistan, out of interest, is 0.9 tons, so about 6% of the rich developed countries. 

Of course one of the huge problems with CO2 is how long it stays in the atmosphere (over 300 years, so long enough to take in all of the industrial age). So if we are looking at "responsibility" for the current CO2 base, then we need to look at historic emissions. Surprise surprise: by far and away the largest contributors are the rich countries (of course the reasons for this hardly need explaining). Especially the United States, which despite having a current population of around 4% of the total current world population, and in the region of 20-23% of the population of the largest countries, is by far and away the largest all time contributor.  The UK by the way is still way ahead of India in the cumulative CO2 emissions (despite the huge disparity in current and indeed historic populations). [of course there has to be an element of guesstimate in the early numbers making up those cumulative figures].

So self evidently those countries that have emitted the most over history are also the ones that have gained the most economic benefit from those emissions. That after all was the very point of using fossil fuels in the first place, so again, no surprise. It is simply undeniable that the lucky position of comparative wealth that you and I find ourselves in is a direct result of our ancestors contribution to current CO2 levels. We personally, each and everyone of us, sit atop a monumental pile of historic CO2 emissions. While those at the bottom of the wealth scale sit atop a mere mole hill.

Remind me, what was that about the problem lying with the poor in the developing world ?

If for a moment we think of the atmosphere as having a finite amount of CO2 'store' before reaching a tipping point, then it is unarguable that those of us in the rich world have both used far more than an equitable share, and have gained the most from mankind using up that store.

As our current per capita CO2 emissions are still considerably ahead of those of poorer people, then making adjustments to reduce output will have outsize impacts on an absolute per capita level. If the US cuts its per capita output by only 10%, just the reduction itself is not far off double the per capita output of someone in Pakistan. It is also self evident that being part of the rich world means it is easier for us to invest in the technology that allows us to make those reductions without having a truly life changing impact on the quality of our lives. Effectively we are cashing in some of those chips we have acquired on the back of our and our ancestors historic emissions. 

Of course, it is also a fact that the poorer populations, without other interventions, will go up the emissions curve on a per capita basis. That is a consequence of them following the same path we have done in wanting to better their lives. So what do you do ? Shrug our shoulders and say its their responsibility as they are the ones that are leading the growth of current emissions (even though they are WAY behind us) ?  Logically that is the same as saying: "we can't change anything, the planet's doomed so I'll just carry on" or "I'm rich, you're poor, I got here first, you need to stop aspiring to be as healthy and wealthy as me:  for yours, mine, and our children's sake".  The former smacks of lack of responsibility to future generations (and just to a sense of we ought to be preserving this place); the latter is unrealistic. Furthermore, telling people that not only currently contribute less than us to the problem, but whose heritage means they have benefitted far less than us from mankind's historical making of the problem, is ethically rather questionable.

So that really only leaves us with one route. Start to become part of the solution, and not be part of the problem. That means making our own changes to reduce our own footprint (which because of our position of relative wealth combined with our relative high carbon footprint means we can do with much less cost relative to impact). It also means that we should actively engage at how we can help the poorest minimise their footprint while going up the wealth curve. That is not a matter of charity, it is one of self interest and self preservation. 

Cows?

Join the club Berny. 

I wonder, do we have another ChatGPT among us ?

The planet doesn't care one iota about per capita emissions or how rich/poor various countries might be.  The planet (or rather life on the planet) cares only about the absolute value of emissions, taken as a whole. 

It's too easy, and very convenient, for the worst offending countries with high populations to excuse themselves with the per capita argument and carry on business as usual.  IMHO we shouldn't be supporting that idea. 

Everybody needs to cut back and ideally the worst offending countries should be cutting back at the greatest rate.  When that happens, more will find it easier to get behind the idea.