>>Science, schmience.

Al Gore ain't no scientist and has a vested interest.

If you want science:

1) IMHO "per capita" emissions are willfully misleading, since proposed effect is from volumes of emission. Per capita figures shroud the fact that if India and China (with 15-20% of world emissions each) followed by the US (with almost 5%) set themselves 0% emission reductions, other nations like Australia (1.3%) can achieve their 20% target at huge cost, only to make a fraction of a % difference to total world emissions. Straining at gnats while swallowing camels. New Zealand's figure is exceedingly difficult to isolate at a fraction of a % of world totals.

2) NZ also has a fairly unique emission footprint with almost 50% from agriculture, compared to a typical 11% in the rest of Kyoto Protocol Annex 1; and NZ's electricity share is 11% compared to most countries where electricity is a major contributor. To succeed, NZ needs to abandon its primary trading commodity (high quality foodstuffs) or prevent livestock farting and belching. We've committed to achieve that. Somehow.

3) Some commentators say that emissions should be allocated to the nation that consumes rather than produces- so that (for example) the US rather than China is held responsible for the footprint of TVs imported from China and NZ's trading partners are liable for the emissions to produce their food. Fair?

>>Pointing out his buffoonery is a good way to avoid the inescapable conclusion that there is only one answer to Pascal's question.

So go to it- remembering that even if the US can somehow reduce its 5% share to absolutely zero emissions, that's still not enough to save the planet per Pascal's wager.