> CO2/land mass as the USA
I'm trying, but really struggling, to understand your logic of anchoring on land area.
Can you explain why you think that's a better metric than per capita? Is it because there are climate-changing emissions that are NOT driven by humans (e.g. seasonal wildfires, volcanic eruptions, etc.)? Or is it something else?
Thanks for explaining your thinking.
> It’s very hard to calculate exactly how much the ecosystem inside a country borders can offset, but a good enough metric is its landmass.
I think this is a flawed basis, because weather patterns, sea rise, etc. don't honor country borders. Only highly localized pollution is somewhat "constrained", but country borders are even porous to that.
So I still don't know that it is an effective incentive to find a better balance. Per capita also has its problems, like penalizing less-developed countries from developing their societies, industries.
The amount of emissions that the planet can take (a that is the real crux of the problem) is what its ecosystems can offset.
It’s very hard to calculate exactly how much the ecosystem inside a country borders can offset, but a good enough metric is its landmass.
Sure, countries like Morrocos will win with this metric and countries like Brasil will lose. But in the end, it’s much better than rewarding what is actually a problem (for climate) like if it was some virtue: high birth rates.