The collapse of the Doha trade talks might be a precursor of what will happen in next year’s Copenhagen meeting that is supposed to define a post-Kyoto approach to climate change. (The U.S. never implemented its Kyoto commitments, since President Bush refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification.)

The Doha talks had survived several near death experiences over the seven years of negotiation, but finally succumbed to a shouting match between China and the U.S. Essentially, the fight was over whether major developing countries (read: China and India) should get protections that developed countries no longer enjoy (read: U.S. and Europe). Similarly, one of the flash points on the road to a new global environmental agreement will be China and India’s demand that they make less substantial commitments to reducing carbon emissions than the U.S. and other developed countries.

The problem is simple. The U.S. is far and away the largest per capita carbon dioxide producer, reflecting high living standards and hydrocarbon-intensive lifestyles. However, China now produces more carbon dioxide, reflecting what happens when you multiply years of very rapid economic growth by a huge population. Should China and the U.S. make similar reduction commitments, which would almost certainly mean slowing China’s development more than it would mean reducing Americans’ living standards?

The Chinese have consistently said that they and other emerging countries have as much right to develop in the 21st century as we do and the Europeans did in the 20th century. That’s an easier proposition for most people to agree with than its corollary: we should live differently so the Chinese can live like us. Even a President Obama would have a tough time selling that proposition.

Of course, if the scientists are right, sooner rather than later we won’t have much of a choice in the matter.