China may become the largest emitter of CO2 in absolute terms quite soon, partly because the technology being deployed is not always the most modern available but mostly because the Chinese are simply becoming more affluent. In terms of CO2 emissions per person, China is still just at 1/4 of the US. India is even lower. However, it's no use telling those countries they have to be more frugal unless the West - especially the US - does more to curb its own appetite for fossil fuels. Fact is, the "developed" world is about to grow from ~1 billion to ~3 billion people by mid-century.

Wrt to oil, the resource that is geographically the most concentrated and the hardest to replace, the US alone consumes about 21 of the roughly 87 million barrels produced every day, i.e. about a quarter of world production. However, it represents just 5% of world population. The majority of this oil is still used in the transportation sector rather than for materials etc. fr which the value added is much higher. Biofuels may well ease the problem to some extent but only if well/field-to-wheels efficiency is sharply improved first. The only way that is going to happen is if US consumers are forced to spend more up front for higher fuel economy. That means raising CAFE or preferably, reliably high fuel prices. In that case, automotive engineers, city planners et al. will figure out how to deliver the desired result. There is still time to initiate this shift in demand slowly enough to avoid serious economic and social disruption.

However, if the US waits too long, a future oil war with one or more other consumer nations is entirely possible. In terms of human and financial cost, that would make the war in Iraq seem like a minor skirmish by comparison.

You may feel that oil markets are already doing enough to shift demand in favor of higher fuel economy, especially in the US. However, oil is in the mother of all bull markets right now. If any of the major economies goes into recession, that speculative bubble could burst very quickly, with knock-on effects on prices at the pump. Consumers will keep demanding high fuel economy only if they are confident that fuel prices will remain high for years to come.

All these projections of 50% growth in oil use and 90-odd% fossil fuel fraction in 2030 are wildly wrong. It just proves how stubborn people are who are used to thinking only one way.

There's likely to be a 20-30% drop in oil production by then, and a huge increase in non-fossil sources.

This will have nothing to do with policy. It will happen out of necessity. As far as an oil price collapse? Could happen for a very short time. But with long-term production falling and demand rising? I don't see anywhere for the price to go but way up.

Even if the United States passes its own climate change legislation after Bush leaves office, the Chinese have indicated that they won't sign on. So where are we then?

I know! I know!

Do nothing!!

We cannot tolerate that other nations, especially China and India, do more or less what we have been doing for many decades!!! Those large nations should do what we promised to do (but didn't do) or what we tell them to do?

Who are we trying to foul, ourselves or some other worlds?

Sooner or latter we will have to realize that 5% of the world population (us) consume about 25% of the energy and create about 25% of the pollution even when most of the products we use are made in Chiona. The problem is here. We have a very long way to go before we can tell the world what to do or not to do.

After we have reduced our per capita energy consumption and GHG by 50+% we may be in a position to boast about it. Meanwhile, we should admit that we are the problem, not others.

US probably had more vehicles in 1930 than what China or India has now. So there's no way Americans can tell the Chinese and Indians to change.

There are many homes here where the Heater/AC is running just for the pets and thay may consume more energy than millions of poorer households in many 3rd world countries.

Despite all these constraints and rising oil prices, India & China have achieved a lot in the renewables.

India & China are #4 & #5 in wind energy capacity.
http://home.wxs.nl/~windsh/stats.html

When a smaller country like Germany have 21,000 MW of wind energy, a larger country like US can have lot more.

Same is the case with natgas vehicle usage.
Argentina, Pakistan, Brazil are top 3 while US is in #9.

US can do a lot. Hope the $90 oil wakes up people.

Nat gas is finite in supply but methane can be easily produced from farm wastes and sewage. India probably leads the world in renewable methane production.

Chinese leaders are not stupid, they do realize that China will be very adversely affected by climate change. They do plan to do something about it, but it's not in their interest to show signs of that as longs as negotiations are ongoing about the relative burdens of different countries. And they won't do anything before developing countries are doing their share. For example, new chinese coal plants are often ready to include CCS in the future and there is a burgeoning wind power manufacturing industry developing in China.

However, China still sees fast economic growth more important than environmental protection, but they know that they have to do something about it sooner than later.

This argument that US shouldn't do anything until China and India have started to cap their emission is iressponsible, unfair and hypocrit. US has been emitting for more than 100 years and china only 20 years if compare the level of emission, china is emitting more and more because they are in the process of eplementing a development model which is just a copy of the US economical model, right ? so let's show now the example for the futur and we will have the right to point out at china. But until then we should shut up and roll up our sleeves since the task is immense

Carbon tax cannot be applied just like that

Reason 1 : Coal has the highest carbon content and also the cheapest of all fuels.
Carbon tax will increase the coal price which may prompt some customers to move
to oil (if they dont have acccess to natgas pipeline). Already oil is terribly
expensive, more demand for oil will put more pressure on everyone.

Reason 2 : Nearly 100 billion dollars may spent every year on defense related to
security of Persian Gulf Oil in the form of military bases and another 500 billion $ (last 5 years)
are spent on Iraq War and another 200 billion $ (last 6 years) to defend us from terrorists who get
money from oil funds. Carbon tax will further increase oil demand and prices and put
more burden on people in both developing countries and US.

Reason 3 : The Light Crude oil which has been used in higher %age's these days were
getting limited and more Heavy Crude is coming in which creates more pollution. Even
worse is the Oil sands which leave tons of sludge and mud as well. Carbon tax will
increase the cost of Oil even more.

So any carbon tax should also involve tax on Oil to cover Security costs. That will
be fair. So, now we know what is the true cost of Worlds 2 major energy sources.

As a matter of fact, 35.8 % of World energy comes from Oil and 28.4 % from Coal
among the 5 major energy sources (Oil, Coal, Natgas, Nuclear & Hydro).

Its very important to increase the use of bio-fuels and renewables like Wind, Solar
and Geo-thermal.

Looks like Oil prices will settle in 90's / barrel.

IEA keeps repeating that World Oil consumption will rise to 115 million bpd by 2030.
The fact is the current demand of 85 million bpd could not be met and Exxon chief
said that Oil outside OPEC countries have already peaked.

Meanwhile Total (French Oil Company) cheif said that reaching 100 million bpd is
very difficult.

We will soon know whether IEA is correct or PO (Peak Oil) group is correct. If PO
is correct, people will mock at IEA.

re carbon taxes on imports

It would be an administrative nightmare to do detailed calculations on every item, so I suggest maybe a flat 20% on imports from greenhouse rogue nations. That means software services from India pay 20% and steel from China pays 20%. The precondition is that importing country has its own stringent carbon penalty scheme, not just signed up to Kyoto and way off target. Free trade is restored when China and India fall into line.

Will this kill trade?...not if they decarbonize.

Aussie & Cervus: glad to see your remarks about the folly of trying to apply a complex tariff based upon carbon intensity or some other buzz word.

Tariffs are not the way to go. The entire world economy is now dependent upon open trade and capital movements. Any attempts to substantially change that will probably prove disasterous both economically and politically.

We can change our energy consumption and improve our situation by taxing fossil fuels. Provided we tax foreign and domestic fuels equally we have no trade treaty problems.

Taxes are not pleasant but the effects are certain. A flat tax on fossil fuel is hard to evade, simple to collect, and encourages conservation, efficiency, and alternative energy use everywhere in the economy.

The down side is inflation. Everything will cost more and our manufacturers will be at even more cost disadvantage. That can't be helped and beats the alternatives.

There is no good way out. There are some really bad ones.

Re: As far as an oil price collapse? ... I don't see anywhere for the price to go but way up."

Yet on an energy basis, oil is now as expensive as electricity, around 7 cents a kwh equivalent (see: Why oil is overpriced), although in most applications it is less productive. So although in the short-term wars and other impediments to the operation of a free market may drive oil prices higher, in the longer term, investments (e.g., in new coal or nuclear power plants) and technological developments, such as plug in electric autos, solar, wind and wave power generation should greatly limit oil demand and price.