'Av u noticed a direct correlation per capita between developed countrys & those responsible 4 global warming?

Question

"The term developed country is used to categorize countries with developed economies in which the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate.
This level of economic development usually translates into a high income per capita and a high Human Development Index (HDI). Countries with high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita often fit the above description of a developed economy. However, anomalies exist when determining "developed" status by the factor GDP per capita alone."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_countries

The same source on the subject of climate change and global warming strongly suggests that everything relevant has occurred since the industrial revolution, which in turn suggests that industry is the primary cause of global warming.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Is it fair to deduce that the average industrial corporation's pathological persuit of profit and power is digging a deep grave for humanity? Can we cap em?

Answer 1

I am going to go out on a limb here, since I am no economist....

Here are a couple of things that occur to me:

-I think it is safe to say that the controlling factor here is not necessarily per cap. GDP, but *disposable* income, since excess income nearly always means a net increase of energy usage.

-I also believe, but cannot prove, that the net energy use by individual consumers, in general exceeds use by industries as a group.

-Areas with both a high HDI, and a high average population density(such as Japan or areas of western Europe) tend to also have a more efficient infrastructure. This means, for example, that companies have to move products a shorter distance in order to reach consumers. Transportation in the form of cars and trucks are the second largest sources of fossil fuel CO2, after coal fired power plants. They are also the area where we could most *easily* reduce CO2 emissions.

- It is pretty safe to pin global warming on fossil fuels, since fossil fuels contain a much lower percentage of the unstable isotope carbon-14. However, until the advent of modern emissions controls, the aerosols produced by fossil fuels may have been actually *cooling* the earth by forming clouds and reflecting sunlight. See "global dimming" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

- Lastly, reducing fossil fuel use is now and always has been a game of "incentives." The economic and social structure in the most "developed" countries is such that the incentive is towards gross energy usage. Part of this is because the more energy we require, the more jobs can be had by utilizing that energy, directly or indirectly.

Keep in mind that the *majority* of the earth's population uses "raw energy" on a small and sustainable level. (for the moment at least...) We certainly have the technology today to reduce the use of energy and fossil fuels; it is only a matter of getting it out there. We just do not have the incentive, and maybe not the will to do so. Certainly the economics and the social structure has to change, at least a little bit, and this is not what everybody wants to hear, particularly the rich and powerful. Economic incentives such as a "Cap and Trade system" are only a stopgap solution, since there has to be a bigger more general incentive towards economic and social restructuring.

But in the end, if the incentive is strong enough, and if we are prudent, people will be able to adjust and make do, possibly by taking advantage of the lack of energy use, rather than it's excess. Hopefully we can find the incentive before we have "dug our hole" any bigger than it already is.....

*pant, pant*

Hope I am making sense here.....
~Donkey Hotei

P.S: don't even ask me how many kilowatt hours I have used by just sitting here writing this......