It is easy to focus on the GHG emissions growth of the country of China, which is critical to address if we are going to address global warming.  But it is important to keep in mind that on a per capita basis, or per person, US citizens produce significantly more global warming gases than people in China.  We have to take the lead in coming up with solutions to reduce GHG emissions, and we must adjust our own lives if we are going to expect developing nations to limit their impact.  If we don't adjust our lifestyles, they will continue to want what we have - more, bigger cars, more TVs, air conditioners, etc.

US citizens produce significantly more global warming gases than people in China.

Right...but in the process we produce more goods and services per person than any nation on Earth.  So, in effect, each American does the work of 10 other people in building superior and more advanced technology, better built goods, faster information systems..and so on...

The products that produce carbon in manufacture...if sold elsewhere...should then have that carbon foot print applied to the consumer...not the producer.

Right...but in the process we produce more goods and services per person than any nation on Earth.

In case ya haven't noticed, a large reason why China emits so much pollution is because they now manufacture the bulk of our household goods and electronics.  

The produce more goods than we do...we just consume them.

I expected that China would beat us in emissions, but I must say even I'm surprised they beat us by 14%.

At that rate, they'll doom themselves right quickly.

The products that produce carbon in manufacture...if sold elsewhere...should then have that carbon foot print applied to the consumer...not the producer.

Since America consumes more goods than any other nation, and since the vast majority of those goods are produced overseas, that would make us once again the worst polluter, in both total tonnage, and by per capita.

People from industrialized countries love to focus on todays emmissions and don't like to discuss the total amount already present in the environment. Most of the pollutants that are already in the atmosphere, earth and water have been emmitted by them over the last 100 and something years. These total historical amounts are creating the problems today. The industrialized countries are responsible for all that and not only for what's happening just now or in the near future and must be made accountable for it.

re: "Its booming economy, terrible energy efficiency, and substantial appetite for coal..."

I don't understand where this "terrible efficiency" statement is coming from. If China's producing less CO2 per capita than the US (4 times less), it sounds like the country is doing pretty well efficiency-wise. Obviously, the US has set the bar pretty low when it comes to energy efficiency, but to say that China's energy use is inefficient, and to point a finger at them for producing the most CO2 in the world (when they have the biggest population in the world and produce many - if not most - of the consumer goods that we Americans buy) is a nasty and unsubstantiated form of scapegoating. The US is clearly the world's leading polluter, and although it's clear that China (and every country everywhere) needs to improve its efficiency, Americans need to stop looking at growth in China (and India) as a central problem and instead focus inward on our own culture of consumption and waste.

Not a simple issue to my mind. True enough that the US (don't forget Australia) has a huge per capita emissions output as well as having a much larger historical contribution that is present in the atmosphere today, but China is the biggest gross emitter and growing (faster than any other country, [perhaps?). On the one hand there's the nation to nation perspective, but on the other there is the total global gross output - the atmosphere isn't going to make any concessions regarding the distinctions we've framed here.

What I'd like to know is what would be a fair proposal for Kyoto 2012 regarding China's emissions. Should we tally up the historical contributions and per capita emissions and targets and work strictly according to that, or should we hedge on a strict accounting and restrict the allowance for China to some degree in order to close the gap on targets? And how would the math work for that?

A balance has to be struck that is reasonable, and, perhaps unfortunately, politically viable. I think Kyoto 2012 should include some restrictions for China, even if only to assuage the people who decry China's immunity. The US will be harder pressed top cry foul and will perhaps more likely sign up.

AFAIK, the US has taken some serious steps to reduce emissions outside the UN framework. But then, China's energy policies and practises appear to be progressive also. I don't know what the formula should be. There's a lot of extenuating circumstances to factor in - like, as mentioned upthread, production of goods and who benefits from who.

Has the issue of future targets for China been addressed anywhere I can check out on the web? Any proposed formulas for establishing emissions targets for Kyoto 2012?