The earth doesn't give a shit about per capita, and us and eu are net reducing CO2 emissions since 2014 (even during trump I)

US: 335M / 5,000M ton / 15 ton

Indonesia: 275M / 650M ton / 2.3 ton

Pakistan: 240M / 225M ton / 1 ton

Nigeria: 220M / 110M ton / 0.5 ton

Brazil: 215M / 475M ton / 2.2 ton

I can go on and on about the countries that are emitting less than the US. People and animals live in areas that are liveable. So countries near the equator and fertile countries will always be more populous. So how else do you propose we compare countries? Which are themselves mostly arbitrary lines as far as the earth is concerned - so why chunk by countries? It has to be per person right?

> So how else do you propose we compare countries

dCO2/dt

The earth also doesn't care about national borders, so why are national numbers more useful in this regard?

Governments have a lot of control over things within their borders, and are held responsible when bad things happen within them.

I am with you on this one. I have seen people making similar arguments about plastic dumped in the oceans where at least until about a decade ago China was well ahead of every nation. The oceans don't care about the per capita plastic polluting them.

Yeah currently the biggest source of oceanic plastic is phillipines IIRC

The earth isn't a person. I think it seems valid to consider the harm and or benefits being caused on a per person basis. Why should an individual in the US be allowed to release more CO2 emissions than an individual in China?

> Why should an individual in the US be allowed to release more CO2 emissions than an individual in China?

The lack of a single world government is why.

Agreements between nations are only enforced by honour, and while that's more than nothing, it's not great.

The practical outcome of this is that who is "allowed" to do anything is dynamic, and who may do something the most can be inverted extremely quickly.

Yes thats right.