Roody you're not really being fair to his argument. I don't see anything wrong with this "Most of the emphasis of these policies have been toward first world nations. The reasoning has been that they have a higher per capita impact... However, if one is truly concerned about a global climate problem, the per capita impact is meaningless. What matters is total numbers of emissions. We could completely eliminate ALL emissions from the US (or Australia) and global emissions would soon surpass any short term savings." in the context of political realities.

I think that you'll agree that the correct moral or ethical course is to correct what we can regardless. Even if it costs us, even if other nations will not share the burden, even if we see no path to solution by our efforts alone, we must still make those efforts.