Well, that's an interesting position, Pieter. On one hand you say: "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" On the other hand you're saying per-capita has everything to do with it. I'd ask you which one you actually believe, but I wouldn't want to be nasty. ![Angry >:(](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/angry.gif)
You're not nasty, just unable or unwilling to follow the discussion so I'll be nice and explain it one more time.
![Wink ;)](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Alan keeps saying China emits more then the US and therefore needs to do more to reduce. I disagree because they have 4 times more people so per capita they're half of the US. So China emitting more is no reason for the US to get off the hook. That's the story as I see it on China.
Then he said Europe needs to do more because for one year there was a marginal increase (allthough the long term trend is down) while both China and the US had a marginal reduction.
I then responded Europe is still lower then the US (both per capita as well as total), so he has nothing to complain about Europe either. Also Europe is more then one country (surprise-surprise) so while some countries might have gone up there are still plenty (mostly North-West Europe) that keep going down.
But the fun thing about the graph he linked to is that it debunked the cry-babies here that China keeps increasing enormously while the data show they are reducing for 2-3 years already and are projected to reduce again next year.