We DID commit to reducing the damage we do. Just not with pathetic sham treaties such as Kyoto. We cleaned up our polluted rivers and implemeneted public programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other nations failed to learn from our example. They went right ahead and made all the same mistakes the U.S. already made decades ago.
And there's a second reason: because the damage they do is going to do destroy them while merely being inconvenient for us.
Take a look at China. China has a serious problem with pollution right now. And by serious, I mean a lot worse than the United States. Now, take a look at where the damage is. The pollution is in CHINA, not the United States. The smog is OVER THERE. The lung cancer is OVER THERE. The lead poisoning is OVER THERE. The only potentially worldwide effect China is having is through greenhouse gases, and they're dropping the ball there, too--they're going right ahead and making the same mistakes.
China had a chance to learn from America's mistakes. They blew it.
Cobblers throughout.
The US has made NO binding commitments to addressing climate change.
You don't seem to be able to distinguish between actions taken to address local water pollution issues ('clean rivers'), particulate pollution ('smog'), ozone depletion and climate change.
Yes the US has taken action on water and particulate pollution, and has participated in the ozone depletion programme which, incidentally, is a perfect example of international pollution reduction targets being agreed and met across developed and developing economies).
Yes industrialising countries such as China and India are suffering water and particulate pollution.
But these are not the same issue as climate change.
The current US adminstration has refused to participate in any meaningful emission reduction programmes, domestically or internationally - thankfully your state and city governments are making some progress, but you are way behind Europe and Japan on this.
The US is the least efficient major country in the world at turning emissions into GDP, the highest emitter per head, the largest emitter overall and contributes substantially (120 m tons of CO2 equivalent in 2003) to global CO2 equivalent growth.
To put it another way, the best estimate of the average per capita emission that can be safely absorbed by the planet is 4-5 ton per year.
France uses about 50% more than this, the UK and Germany about double, China about 40% less, India about one fifth of the 'safe allowance'. All of the above - including China and India - are aiming to achieve post-industrialisation at or below the safe emissions level per capita
The US uses between
four and five times the safe level per capita. Despite the already enormous level of US emissions, it is responsible for more than 30% of the world's
growth in emissions (1990-2003) at a time when other industrialised countries have curtailed growth in emissions or even brought about reductions.
It is simply rubbish to blame the problem on those countries with low per capita and absolute levels of emissions. There is no solution without the US understanding and accepting its contribution to the problem. Bush expecting the rest of the world to carry his country's problem for him is ridiculous.
BFR
It's a weak acid, and as we've covered before, it doesn't matter where you emit the CO2, give it a few weeks, and it's spread itself out pretty uniformly. If you moved the entire Earth's CO2 emissions to a point source in Botswana, you'd see the same effects.
