Lets keep aside the number crunching aside for a minute and look at the core argument (the numbers are only tools to support that stand you have already taken). What the US or its like-minded countries like Japan and Australia are essentially saying is:

“We have committed slow murder over the past so mnay years. But you can’t punish us. But you (China, India etc) are going commit murder say, 20 years from now. We can’s allow that and we have to punish you now.”

Even as it points fingers at China, what do countries like US, UK propose to do? Do they say, no more coal? No, they want to keep their coal power plants and they come up even more gizmos like capturing carbon and storiing it somewhere deep down. Put it out of sight and hope that the problem will go away. And, if the carbon leaks say 50 years from now, the architects of this brilliant scheme won’t be around to answer for it.

Do the US citizens say, No more cars? No they say we want to keep our cars and we will grow the fuel for it. Never mind if the land to grow the fuel will displace food crops. All the corn in the US can only meet 12% of its current petrol use.

So, the rich want to keep the cake and eat it too. Don’t blame the Chinese cake for giving you stomachache.

If we are hoping to get developed world emissions down 1/5 what they are now, yet suggesting a model of growth that basically says the developing world has 45 years from intensifying industry (China did this in the 1980s and it is at least a precursor to China’s 1990s boom) until it has to cap emissions…
The math is calculus. Each subsequent developing country has to use less carbon. This is facilitated by profitable energy efficency gains, but too slowly. For example China competes with Bangladesh for labour. Bangladesh will want the 45 years of immunity but to maintain hope of a predictable 1990 or so climate, may only have 10 years before mandated to cap emissions. In effect, just like we screwed over the developing world by (unknowingly until 1991) emitting all the early CO2, Beijing would be screwing over Lagos by emitting all the middle CO2.
What is the Dept of Homeland Security’s contingency plan for 4 billion people losing all their Himalayan meltwater at once? The unemployment alone would “Iraq” Chinese infrastructures; they will have learned how to protest. All goods in our 2050 wired world originating from SE Asia would cease to flow.
4 billion people will go from making $100000 a year to maybe $10000. A $360T annual loss. Much less in today’s dollars but at least not worthless like in 2008.

“Fairness of per person emissions, in the sense that the Western world setup our CO2 levels during their industrialization – matters when negotiating with countries going through their industrialization now.”

Just to be difficult, what’s so great about the western model of indusrialization nowadays? Has anyone been on the freeway in L.A. lately? If I felt free to do so, I’d ask the Beijing guys to rise above that model: why ruin such a beautiful land, and why not show the world how it can be done?

In any event, I certainly didn’t mean to hide the ball, but perhaps I am too close to the China issue to appreciate what is common knowledge among other climate change cognoscenti. Had I been writing for the popular press, I certainly would have included the per capita numbers. I don’t think Joe was aware of my removal of the per capita paragraph, so whatever “blame” there is here is solely mine.

As Tim R. mentions above, fairness of per person emissions, in the sense that the Western world setup our CO2 levels during their industrialization – matters when negotiating with countries going through their industrialization now. Something close to contract and convergence will be the model we’ll probably end up needing to follow (to get the developing world to buy in) and that won’t be an easy sell in our sound bite political system here in the US.

But there is a larger problem with the post. At this point in the debate, it is simply irresponsible to refrain from casting emissions data using per capita numbers. Nearly every U.S. citizen that follows the news now believes that China is the world’s biggest climate polluter. Of course they want strong binding commitments on the Chinese. What Americans blissfully ignore, including the author here on Climate Progress, is that Americans are responsible for about five times more climate emissions per person than the Chinese (about 20 times more than the Indians.)

Even after the 2030 targets outlined above are met, U.S. citizens will still be allowed roughly twice the emissions that a Chinese citizen will. How does the Chinese leadership sell that to its population? Unless people in this country understand the fundamental imbalance we begin with, it will be difficult to understand Chinese reluctance to enshrine that imbalance in a binding international treaty.

Please Climate Progress, subject yourself to the same kind of strict standards you hold out for journalists everywhere and maintain the intellectual honesty of always reporting per capita emissions when comparing international emissions.