In Australia there is a constant comparison to India and China while talking about Greenhouse gases. The main argument goes like this:

1. India and China are growing rapidly and so they need to cut their emissions
2. Australia produces only 1% of emissions
3. India and China are not part of Kyoto so we will not be too

Even though this may seem like a fair enough argument, there are flaws.

The number one flaw is the wrong use of comparison metric.

Lucy Siegel in the Observer recently tackles this:

…this development has triggered moaning and a rush of metaphorical sick notes, ‘I can’t/won’t curb my CO2 emissions because India’s are growing.’

This argument would carry more weight if only our own emissions weren’t quite so, well, weighty. Ten years ago the ecological footprint of the average Indian was 0.4 hectares, equating to emissions of 0.81 tonnes of CO2 per person per year. Admittedly this has risen to 1.34 tonnes, but still doesn’t really compare with the average 11.01 tonnes per UK citizen or a spectacular 28 tonnes from those Kyoto opt-out Australians.

Comparing the per capita emissions is the most important part. Another comparison that needs to be done is the per capita income. The per capital at PPP is a better one here.

The following is a comparison from the CIA Fact book (2004):

• United States – Rank 7 ($41,600)
• Australia – Rank 19 ($31,600)
• United Kingdom – Rank 25 ($30,100)
• China – Rank 118 ($6,800)
• Indian – Rank 159 ($3,400)

A visual representation can be found from the world bank. However, this is based on per capita on a market exchange rate which marks India and China even lower.

As we can clearly see, Australia and US are far ahead in terms of Per Capita income. Expecting India and China to follow them in curbing emissions is simply immoral.

Another way to understand this is the Environment Kuznet’s Curve.

From the Wikipedia:

Another situation where Kuznets type curves appear is the environment. It is claimed that many environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shape: in the beginning of economic development, little weight is given to environmental concerns, raising pollution along with industrialization. After a threshold, when basic physical needs are met, interest in a clean environment rises, reversing the trend. Now society has the funds, as well as willingness to spend to reduce pollution. This relation holds most clearly true for a few pollutants, such as Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide, but there is little evidence that the relationship holds true for other pollutants, especially those with non-local effects, or for the environment in general.

Intuitively this makes sense, however, there is little evidence that it does happen. A high Per Capita income atleast provides the means towards creating a better environment but the will is still needed.

In the end, developing nations like India and China need to work towards “green development” if not for the world’s sake, for their own betterment but if Australia and other developed countries cannot use it as a excuse for their own wasteful economy.