We’ll just have to see what happens next regarding this topic, I certainly do not know.

Still, I’d be willing to ‘invest’ more into environmental preservation, being ‘Europe’, than Asia, Africa and South-America. As in my opinion we should strive towards a global equality in emission per capita, Europe and the US will have to suffer more to get there than the developing nations. But I don’t think this should be a one-step program; baby steps into the right direction, with one or a few big ones to start off, are fine.

See, I’m not one to propagate equality of wealth; to put it bluntly, humanity is second priority for me as it can very well take care of itself, thank you. But as the developed countries are both the worst polluters and the richest, I don’t really see any other option than us carrying the heaviest burden. As long as it’s a global effort – and a genuine one from all involved parties – I’d be okay with it.

The problem here is probably that there’s no governmental body that has any power over the involved nations. Therefore, opting out of the agreement doesn’t carry any direct punishment; you create a sort of prisoner’s dilemma. Pretty much the only global instances that in any way have power over countries are the IMF and the World bank. While their mission might not include this, at least they could force action in some way.

Someone has to start behaving responsible, I agree. But why are there no efforts to ‘upgrade’ our 20%-rule into a global agreement? That is the question at hand, and that is what I was trying to get a grasp on.
Me putting it perhaps too string is kind of a defect probably, but I’ll have to live with that.
So, how do you feel on the above, revised, question?

Ask yourself the question: who else would? The US won’t. Africa can’t afford it. South America can’t either. Asia is too tied up in fantastic growth to stunt itself now. That only leaves Europe.

You know my position on this, so I won’t comment further.