Since the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries, per capita is in fact the correct way to measure when trying to decide whether a given country is contributing more or less than its fair share of the world's total for any kind of atmospheric pollution.
One simple way to see this is to consider what would happen if China were to split up into 100 separate smaller countries, each with the same per capita emissions as before.
Under a per country measurement, you get the absurd result that emissions have massively improved, even though the amount actually emitted into the atmosphere has not changed at all.
One simple way to see this is to consider what would happen if China were to split up into 100 separate smaller countries
Again, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the emissions under control of any one government. There is no realistic probability of China breaking up so that is a complete red herring.
China’s government has made the policy decision to increase its emissions and I wonder if everyone will be happy when “per capita” they match much less populated countries. It isn’t required under the Paris treaty to take any action for 10 more years by which time “per capita” it will vastly outstrip any Western country, both in absolute terms and “per capita”.
Looking at it “per capita” is just the politically correct version of climate denial.
One simple way to see this is to consider what would happen if China were to split up into 100 separate smaller countries, each with the same per capita emissions as before.
Under a per country measurement, you get the absurd result that emissions have massively improved, even though the amount actually emitted into the atmosphere has not changed at all.