I've heard that for years. To be honest I'm a bit taken back, I had assumed it was common knowledge.
Again, when I get home I can go into more detail, but a quick Google search shows it.
Here's a quick Wikipedia link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
As to how they measure it, again, I'm not a climate scientist, so I'm not sure. I think it's mostly by purely how much, not just how efficient. If we were to make treaties, I'd assume it wouldn't be done in a way that we hurt ourselves. However this is again getting more into the political aspect of it, and I'm not as concerned with that. It should be more of a scientific debate, and instead its being taken over by morons who think that a snowball is proof it doesn't exist.
Always keep the end in mind with any study. What is the study being used for. Your link is again based on total CO2 emissions (there are far more emissions and pollutants than CO2) and per capita. Nothing on production. It also has everything to do with how they measure it and what they are using as their sources/science.
If you look at per capita, which is how most world treaties are designed, China would be allowed to produce three times as much CO2 as it does now before catching up with the US based on that criteria. Never mind that they are already far exceeding the US in CO2 emissions while producing far less AND their products are not as safe, their cars have virtually zero emission standards, their cities and suburbs are far more polluted, etc... There is no way a scientist should believe, given that data, that the US is a bigger threat to the environment than China or several other nations. That is bad science forming bad policy.
You can't get away from the politics of it even if and ESPECIALLY if you want to have a scientific debate as to what should be done to improve the situation. The science of it is meaningless if you don't use it in a logical manner. By making countries that have actually found a way to produce more per unit of fossil fuel do even more, you are allowing countries that have done virtually nothing environmentally sound to take over markets and produce even more toxins. It's an unavoidable truth.
Just look at the graph that is even in your article. China is blasting the roof off of emissions and yet is still 1/3rd per capita of the US. What happens when/if they catch up? Holy crap that is a freaking cesspool that the rest of the world will have to pay for. Meanwhile, we would be asked to cut our emissions simply because we have been successful. And it does no use to ignore the fact that what you would be doing is cutting down on more efficient and environmentally sound production and replacing it with high polluting industries in other countries.
Should we strive to do better? Sure. But before any of these world treaties should be signed by the US, other countries need to demonstrate they are cutting emissions and creating efficiencies - that they are stepping up to the plate and there is a level playing field.
An iron smelting (I think that's the term) mill that had been decommissioned here in Oregon during the 60s because it couldn't keep up with US environmental standards was taken apart and reassembled in China about 10 years ago. It went back into production with no new environmental controls. Do you suppose we might have gotten even stricter on those controls over the past 50 years? Good to go in China though. The paper mill in Salem, OR was shut down a few years ago and is in the process of trying to sell the plant to China.
I'm sure it will be reinstalled with all the latest environmental technologies.
Sorry Blue but scientific research that points at which countries produce more emissions is only done toward a political end. And if you use those studies to form international policy, you can't ignore the effects on our economy.
