There’s a strange attitude here in the USA about global warming these days. Almost everyone has given in to its existence. Even the Republican leadership in Washington no longer challenges the scientific validity of the theory that gasses created by human industrial activity have raised the world’s temperature and could cause some really nasty problems later this century. But they are trying to minimize its potential by claiming it to be just another technical problem.

Even some of the more thoughtful writers assume that the success that America has had in controlling atmospheric pollution problems (e.g., CFC’s and nitric oxides) will surely repeat itself with regard to greenhouse gasses. And some of the more fervent “internationalists” support this notion by blaming the USA and western Europe for entirely causing the problem. They thus assume that the force of their United Nations-flavored wrath will stimulate the technological fixes and investments that will cool things down. On top of all that, the idealistic pop musicians are organizing concerts to save the planet, bringing back that good old “we are the world” spirit that makes everyone feel nice and cozy. We’ve admitted our guilt, we’ve put out a concert video, we’ve seen the Al Gore movie, and the problem is solved (other than a few loose ends that the scientists and engineers can take care of).

I recently read a handful of articles hinting that global warming is going to be much tougher to deal with than the public seems to think. There is a group of academic researchers working with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change who put out a study showing that the causes of global warming are more evenly spread over all of the inhabited continents than is popularly believed. The new analysis still shows that the average North American and European citizens have polluted the skies with greenhouse gasses much more than their Asian, African and Latin American neighbors have. But even if the industrialized nations get a handle on the problem with their technology, concentrations of greenhouse gasses could still continue to rise toward a “tipping point” where all sorts of bad stuff will start happening.

That is because of such things as methane emissions from certain types of food production (e.g. rice fields and cattle), crude means of producing charcoal (the most popular form of fuel in Africa and the poorer areas of Asia and South America) and deforestation. Another problem is that the developing nations are hell-bent on industrializing without much regard for the side effects. Thus, India and China are building lots of coal-burning electrical plants and factories without adequate pollution controls. And more and more people in those places are now driving autos and buying larger homes farther from work. They’re taking up our suburban habits, and that’s not good.

Here are some rough numbers from a 2005 article published by some UN-affiliated scientists: if you consider all of the recognized factors that contribute to global warming, the causes of unnatural planetary heating during the 20th Century would be split as follows: OECD countries (USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Korea and western Europe as far as Poland and Turkey) – 38 %; Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union – 14 %; developing Asia (w/o Japan and Korea) – 26 %; Africa and Latin America (w/o Mexico) – 22 %. By comparison, the present population of the world breaks down as follows: OECD, 18%; former Soviet Union, 4%; developing Asia, 57%; and Africa / Latin America, 21 %. Some quick math shows that the Russians and their friends did the most damage per person; OECD denizens came in second, Africans and Latin Americans placed third, and developing Asians finished fourth.

What does that say about the future? Well, OECD is the home of technology and wealth. But even so, they can’t (and won’t) turn their capitalistic economies around on a dime. By 2100, perhaps they can cut their “greenhouse footprint” by one-eighth or one-sixth, one-quarter tops. The former Soviet region isn’t doing as well, although they may at least keep their footprint from getting bigger (especially since their population is not growing). As to Africa and Latin America – these places are so poor and so hard to reach, it’s doubtful that they can do much to stop the damage they are causing. And their populations are expected to grow significantly, which means that their “footprint on the sky” could well get worse. As to developing Asia – that’s where future of global warming is going to be determined, simply because of the sheer size of its population (and their continuing although slowing population growth rates).

Developing Asia is quickly increasing its impact on greenhouse warming. Let’s say, however, that over the next 50 years it doesn’t get worse, on a per-person basis, than the 20th Century average for Africa and Latin America. Let’s also say that the OECD nations manage to cut their average impact by one-quarter; that the Russian-zone impact comes down by a tenth; and Africa and Latin America stay the same. Where does that leave us? According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it leaves our planet fifteen percent worse than today. Instead of leveling off later this century, as the UN reports on global warming assume, global warming would then accelerate, hurling us toward ecological breakdown. The worst case scenarios of 20-foot sea rises and arid deserts across China, the USA and middle Europe, start to look more feasible.

We’ve clearly been saved from our folly thus far by Asia’s poverty. And now they’re starting to figure out how to leave that poverty behind. They’re using the same techniques that we used, which messed the atmosphere up so much in the first place! They’re locking-in on our own bad habits by setting up fossil-fuel intensive economies and competitive ways of life. Unless we here in the west quickly develop some alternatives for living modestly and cooperatively in an ecologically responsible fashion, the developing world is going to pave the road to hell with high-carbon bling-bling, just as we did. And this time, the road is going to go all the way there.

PS — If you don’t believe me in regard to Asia and global warming, check out Tom Friedman. And thanks to the NY Times for allowing us cheapskates to read him for free once more on their web site.