Did you know....

The state of Texas has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. Texas has a population of 23 million whereas Africa has a population of 720 million.

Sub-Saharan Africans have an average per capita carbon footprint of 0.83 tons/CO2 whereas in the US this figure is 20 tons/CO2 and rising. This means that the average American is twenty times as responsible for emissions than the average African. And yet, the Bush Administration claimed that there must be binding target for developing countries before they would accept any target. This seems to be a carefully calculated ploy to avoid responsibility, as without looking at the figures you could assume that it is "fair" for all countries to have targets. Yet it is not morally feasible to expect countries who have not caused the problem to have to deal with it.

Moreover, the policy under Clinton, now taken up by the EU, was to encourage the use of "emissions trading" which would apparently reduce the cost of action on climate change. I may reduce the cost, but will also reduce the effectiveness. Especially since there is the prospect of "hot air" credits for Russian 'reduction' of emissions which happened in the early 1990's due to the collapse of Communism.

The institutions to deal with climate change have not resulted in any actual change in policy because despite the 'targets', global emissions have continued to rise. Science has called for rapid action which does not seem to be happening. Deforestation and fossil fuel use continues, driven by economic growth. Yet many 'developed' countries still insist upon 'growth'... Is this necessary? Does GDP really need to rise in countries that are already 'developed'? Is it really an accurate measure of well-being?

Einstein said ''no problem can be solved by the same thinking that created it''. Some have seen climate change as a commercial opportunity which needs technological fixes, and governments are trying to create a 'market' for carbon emissions. But by putting an economic value on a natural substance, are we just continuing the same ideology that got us into this mess?