|
|
|
|
|
by incrudible
1807 days ago
|
|
Fair enough, let's say CO2 will not stop immediately after population growth stabilizes, but rather after wealth growth stabilizes. However, population growth is strongly related to low levels of wealth, and vice versa. Activists often like to point at the high per-capita rate of emissions of people in developed countries, but that ignores that there are far fewer such people and that their birth rates are usually below replacement levels. The climate itself obviously doesn't care about emissions per-capita. This is also another reason why the crux of the problem is not with developed countries. They have all the wealth to optimize and reduce their emissions, but if the developing world is bound towards a similarly high standard of living, that can't really make much of a difference. If anything, the focus should be on making that development as "clean" as possible, which is not the same problem as reducing emissions at home, except for some technological overlap. Alternatively, developing countries could simply be denied our standard of living through international policy. That, of course, would be an injustice. |
|
By far the most emissions, now and historically, are in developed countries. The cause of our current problems is the failure of developed countries, the US in particular, to act.