But India's CO2 emissions are some 15x greater in terms of GDP. Assuming a straight-line consumption path, as India continues to grow economically its CO2 output will -- much as China's did -- start outpacing the US. (This has, incidentally, been at the heart of BRIC arguments against multilateral ecological controls: "You WEIRDOs made your fortune without caring about the environment, and now you want us to stifle our own growth!")

And umm, US oursources its polluting industries to China. Maybe compare on consumption.

Plus the BRICS (atleast India), are willing to settle with some financial and technological help in moving to renewables. But of course, that's not happening.

India's population is a problem we have created ourselves. If you look at forest cover, US has 2x forest cover of India's. So yes for once I agree Indian's should stop looking outside and start taking responsibility for our problem and solve them ourselves.

US is 3 times the size of India so we can't directly compare on the basis of forest cover alone. And forests help as a CO2 sink but they don't do much against other harmful emissions and PM

You need energy to make stuff and the US GDP is 14x that of India.

How does it make sense to say that the smaller population of US deserves way more energy than the 4x population of India. Just because the US economy is better? And does the better US economy enable people all over the world or just the US? If things are fair, such an argument wouldn't even come up. Of course, we don't live in a fair world.

I am not saying that developing countries should just pollute as they wish. But the developed world have not been saints in this regard.

You basically just said that the US is allowed to pollute more than India because they make more money.

Make more stuff. How much energy does it take to make cars that are sold all over the world?

I don't know how much energy it takes, but:

1. Do you?

2. America doesn't make all the cars in the world.

According to wikipedia, America made just over 12 million vehicles in FY2015, and India made just over 4 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_veh...

I would also point out that India made MORE steel than the USA in the same period. Another polluting industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_pro...

3. The US has gone through similar stages of growth. Pollution in cities dropped as measures were taken to improve the quality of life over there, and as technology improved.

http://www.businessinsider.in/This-Old-Picture-Of-Manhattan-... .

4. None of the above matters.

That's the wrong metric you're looking at. If the US and India both stopped making cars or invested in lower pollution manufacturing methods, that would reduce the pollutant output. It would also reduce GDP.

Neither country is willing to sacrifice their growth and industry, and so the whole world chooses to keep boiling the frog.

I think the point being made is that America made harsher pollution laws to fix pollution internally, with the side effect that pollution was exported to factories that did the manufacturing (and polluting) in other nations.

Until very recently (in historic terms), America was the consumer of a large share of goods produced in those markets.

So I don't think you can say technology improvements are a prime reason for mfg pollution dropping in America. It is A reason, but not the only.