I doubt that our current global warming is much affected by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, I would like to say that although the USA seems to be harshly criticized for not doing our part in reducing GHG emissions, some other countries should look at the data in another way, that is, GHG emissions on a per square mile basis, rather than on a per capita basis. The USA is a relatively large, sparsely populated country compared to many others. It is not economical to implement fuel efficient mass transportation compared to small densely populated countries. We also supply food to other parts of the world, and farming efficiently requires energy. In addition, many parts of the USA have rather harsh climates and require air heating or cooling more than in other parts of the world. I looked at year 2003 GHG emission data and compared it to the area of several countries. In GHG emission per area of each country, France emits about 1.4 times as much as the USA and that is fairly low in comparison to some other developed countries. Look at this:
COUNTRY RELATIVE GHG EMISSION/AREA
USA 1.0
France 1.4
United Kingdom 3.7
Germany 4.0
Japan 5.0
If the USA were as densely populated as these countries I think our GHG emissions on a per capita basis would be much easier to reduce. If these other counties were as sparsely populated as the USA I think they would have a difficult time keeping there GHG emissions as low as they are on a per capita basis. The point is that if the USA were as densely populated as many other countries, our GHG emissions per capita would probably go way down, but our total emissions would way go up. Maybe instead of the world concentrating on our per capita GHG emissions and energy use, they should concentrate on trying to reduce their population densities to a level more in line with ours. Also, is it fair to the rest of the world for small countries to contain so many people, each requiring resources needed by all?
