The west is refusing to reduce its emissions down to the same amount per capita as developing nations. Until this happens then the west is being hypocritical. It is impossible to argue that the west should somehow be entitled to a bigger carbon footprint per person than people in the developing world. This means that the BASIC countries should be able to expand their footprint until it is the same as the west’s. The onus is on the west to reduce its emissions to a low enough level that the developing world rising theirs up to the same level does not cause catastrophic global warming.

If it was the west with rapidly expanding economies they too would not be willing to make commitments on cutting CO2 emissions. The West’s economy is not growing quickly and so does not need large amounts of carbon intensive energy in order to keep the economy running. If this was the 19th century and Germany was racing to catch up with Britain and improve its living standards would it be willing to jeopardise this by cutting emissions? Probably not. Similarly other countries at a similar stage of their development would not be willing to make the sacrifice. It has been known for a long time that the environment is damaged by industrialisation, the industrial cities of Manchester and Birmingham were regularly described as being pretty close to hell on earth where everything was black and poisonous. This did not stop the drive to increase production. Simply at that stage of development the benefits of getting richer are considered more important than the environment.

While Germany would almost certainly have refused to reduce emissions if Britain did not make as big or bigger cuts this is not the situation we have. Rather the US while it is lagging behind is willing to make some reductions, China should therefore be willing to follow.

Much of the developing world’s increases in emissions are caused by the developed world outsourcing manufacturing to the developing world. Much of the polluting heavy industry in the west has disappeared and moved to the developing world, particularly countries like China who now emit the emissions for products that end up on the shelves of shops in the west. This means that the emissions measured for the developing world are being taken advantage of in the developed world.

The developed world has the money to reduce their emissions while the developing world does not. Rich countries can afford to install lots of renewable energy, invest in new technologies, build high speed railways and capture carbon emissions. This is all costly technology that even the richer developing countries can’t necessarily afford and do not have the technological know how to implement.

However the developing world is now building their infrastructure. They should be building as much of their electricity generation from renewable sources as possible. Why build a motorway when you can build a more environmentally friendly high speed railway? The developed world on the other hand built their motorway networks and power stations decades ago when CO2 emissions were not thought to matter. It would now be very costly to replace this already existing infrastructure.

There is still disagreement between developed nations on reducing emissions. Furthermore, the United States, Canada and Australia have not taken the lead on reducing emissions when they have some of the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions among developed countries. It is hypocritical of the West to criticise developing nations

This situation is a lot like people with hybrid cars. They often accuse those who own a regular car, saying that they aren't green enough. I'm not saying its not better than a regular car, but Its a lot more green to use public transportation or a bike. The difference between us, is that they have money for a hybrid, and the rest of us don't. The developing countries don't have nearly as good (for example) recycling program, because they cant afford it, but still they produce lot less greenhouse-gases, trash etc. because they got fewer factories, smaller houses, older technology and the list goes on forever. Surly the developing countries could lower their pollution, but during/after/before a recession, its just not the number one concern of a regular politician/citizen. In fact, the long term actions haven't been more neglected for decades.

These interests themselves are hypocritical.

It is not being hypocritical to criticise developing nations. Rather the criticism performs an important function in encouraging the developing world to go further and faster in reducing their own emissions. In doing this the west is simply voicing its own interests as the more the developing world cuts the less the developed world needs to.

The blame assigned to China and other basic countries over the failures at Copenhagen are not hypocritical because much of the west was willing to go further than China was willing to let them. The west is willing to put its money where its mouth is and reduce its own emissions both in the short term (by 2020) and in the longer term (by 2050). However if this is to make any difference then there needs to be some action by the big developing countries as well or else reductions made by the west will simply be swamped by increases in emissions made by the developing world. It is not hypocrisy to wish to help the developing world save itself from itself.