Maybe they used 1997 because that was the date of the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.

So since it was adopted, how have the various countries performed? How does the US compare with the EU? How does the US compare with China? How does the US compare with Russia?

Thanks.

So what about this AEI report? You see, China and India are technically signatories to Kyoto, but without obligation other than monitoring and reporting emisions (no reductions). oth have increases of about 50% over the 1990-2004 period, hence the huge disparity.

The decision was made to allow them growth based on their lower per-capita emissions (e.g., giving them a chance to 'catch up' economically). If you want to look at it as a per capita increase over the time period 1990-2004:

United States: +2600 lbs/person (up to about 40 lbs/person)
China: + 2500 lbs/person (up to about 7.7 lbs/person)
India: + 800 lbs/person (up to only 2.4 lbs/person)
EU: - 300 lbs/person (12.5 lbs/person)

The inability to establish a cap on China & India, etc. was a huge hole in the Kyoto Accord, one that places other signatories at a disadvantage economically as well as opening the door for the 50% figures you referenced as skewing the results for the other nations. The upper atmosphere doesn't care much about "per capita" or "catching-up" or any other kind of spin. Total global emissions is the ony figure that matters in stemming the rate of climate change, and Kyoto flubbed it.

That doesn't, however, in any way excuse the head-in-the-sand, pretend it isn't happening, do nothing course the United States has taken in the face of now overwhelming evidence of the harm we're doing. To pretend we're doing better than Western Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, or any other developed nation by hiding behind China and India is pretty pathetic.

The United States needs to take immediate action to enforce realistic and effective policies to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, a large percentage of which have no bearing on our economic peformance as a nation, just our preferences in terms of what cars to buy, how big of a house to live in, where to build that house, etc. The next phase of the "let's do nothing" battle seems to be to argue about whether to use market forces (emissions trading) or regulations, tax incentives (carrots) or EPA fines (sticks). The answer, of course, is simply "yes." These are false choices. Market forces and regulatory oversight, and carrots and sticks work pretty well with one another. One approach encourages and rewards early adopters. The other prods along those lacking the vision or willpower to make changes.

As for Kyoto, it expires in 2012. There's a great opportunity for the U.S. to come to the table and for all the signatories to plug the gaping holes that are China and India. Given the likely rate of continued growth of southern India and the eastern Chinese coast, these have to be addressed or not much of what the rest of the world does is going to matter. The 21% figure the AEI is attempting to hide behind should be proof enough of that, no? The trick is going to be finding a way to address their emissions without stifling their expanding economies. They won't come on board or stay on board (depending on your point of view) if Kyoto II seems to be consigning them to poverty.