Developing Countries Emissions Debate

The developing world's growth is largely fueled by consumption in the west - and the current CO2 in the atmosphere from the last 2 centuries was largely from the west as well.The financial incentives to pollute are too great for developing countries. We can't expect them to bear the full brunt while Americans are buying F-150s and denying its existence.

Companies are different from people. Very poor analogy.A better one would be a cities or provinces. And, yes, I believe every city should be given the chance to develop at the risk of short term harm to the environment.People from City B don't deserve to remain poor just because City A had a head-start and polluted the river first.Ideal scenario would be City/State A getting heavily taxed to subsidize City/State B's investment in renewables, people's education a

Its not a realistic choice for them. Large parts of developing nations still have absolute poverty problems with their population dying due to the lack of basic necessities. Having them remain on that level of poverty, or worse, reducing their standard of living further is not an option. Its up to the West to solve global warming globally and that includes providing at least India and Africa, but likely every developing Nation, including China, with climate neutral ways of development equivalent

Yes.Additionaly - developing countries are developing because they started to polute later. They are now punished again by being prohibited from abusing einvironment the same (cheap) way that developed countries did before.That means rich countries will remain richer than poor countries because they can afford massive investment into infrastructure to switch to cleaner alternatives, while poor countries will need to adjust by using less power, producing less goods etc.You basically ask

In effect you‘re saying that countries that are poor today must not be allowed to reach the level of western countries. I don‘t have a good word for it but that‘s a very specific worldview.If we believe that every country has the right to develop, than the poorest countries emission will increase. Better technology will flatten that increase but those are expensive. Wealthy countries pioneering the widespread use of these technologies will reduce cost and allow developing countries to deploy

In response to the deleted post below: I don't think it's fair, let alone possible, to try to prevent the developing world from becoming developed merely out of a fear for the possibility of "bad things" happening due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Moreover, we are already more or less past the stage where we will have to deal with the consequences of high CO2 levels, whatever they are. I think a wealthier, more developed world is far, far more likely to be able to do that.Additionally, if

More than that, the key point of contention is the fact that several countries with a total population of billions of people (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, and others) are going to transition into developed "first world" economies in the 21st century. Currently there is no known technology that would allow them to avoid heavy reliance on carbon based energy sources while that transformation occurs. It's easy to sit on our 1st world thrones and imagine that if only we drove our cars

Real world trolley problem!You're a developing country. You can either choose to industrialize with your native energy resources and commit ecocide or you can hamper your economic growth and isntead spending money you don't have on flakey renewables from the West and save the environment.In all seriousness, this is kicking away the ladder at its finest, and I've seen tons of policy suggestions even going as far as to suggest global carbon trading schemes, carbon tarrifs, and

No, they cannot compensate for both China and India which as the two biggest still developing economies produce the most CO2. Don't forget that Africa is projected to enter into rapid development in the next 30-50 years. The west, no matter the good intentions, cannot balance out the produce of half of humanity if that half does not want or is unable to join in.

India, and large parts of China and Africa will be heavily impacted by climate change, far more than the US. India and China are already taking it very seriously - building tons of renewable energy capacity, high taxes on fuel etc. And that's with the world's largest polluter (the US) not doing anything, and in fact denying there's even a problem.It would be better for everyone if everyone stops polluting. But rich countries, that are mostly in northern latitudes and less affec