> Most countries have committed to an attempt to keep temperatures from consistently coming in above that point...
All well and good, but it's a handful of countries that are responsible for the vast manority of the consequences. And those countries have been slow to assume that responsiblity and adjust appropriately.
No. I'm talking about total emission per capita of goods consumed.
Take for example, the USA and China (and SE Asia). The USA loves to brag about our efforts to clean up the (USA) environment; about all the improvements since the 70s. What's never (ever?) mentioned is how much of that was from manufacturing and that manufacturing has been outsourced to China/SE Asia (subject to even lower environmental protection standards). That production of emissions doesn't belong to the source of production per se, it belongs to the end point of consumption.
If per capita means nothing, the logical solution for China is to split itself into 100 countries. Somehow that would make the contribution from each new country less important in your view.
Measuring by per capita pollution and getting that measure down is the only sane way to count emissions. The end product is the same, total emissions go down, but we can focus on a metric that makes sense no matter how large the country you’re measuring is.
All well and good, but it's a handful of countries that are responsible for the vast manority of the consequences. And those countries have been slow to assume that responsiblity and adjust appropriately.
But sure, let's spin it as most countries.