[wtcactus]

If the argument is that we should now pay up for our ancestors not having the foresight to understand that industrializing during the 19th and early 20th century was going to have a negative impact on the environment, then I also expect other people to pay up for their ancestors during the 19th, early 20th, and even late 20th century not understanding that having a lot of children would have a negative impact on the environment.

[mrphoebs]

I don't know why the lens you view this through is retributional, us vs them, or about taxing success of developed nations or rewarding people of a particular geography. Population growth is not an independent variable, it depends on availability of arable land, resources, education, urbanization, regulating structures/incidents. All human populations tend to have similar trends based on the above. Just because someone draws a line on the map around a lot of arable land doesn't mean it is overpopulated.

Climate change is going to effect every one even if those in developing nations suffer disproportionately. The quicker we transition our energy architecture away from non-renewables the better off everyone is. Those with surplus capital have the power to make this happen faster by helping those without. The alternative is choosing to suffer by delaying this with an us vs them narrative.

[igorkraw]

...are you attacking the babyboomers parents?

And more seriously the argument is that if we on the lottery and our ancestors did the damage before we understood it, then yes, we don't get to keep the benefits from other people and have _them_ foot the bill of avoiding further damage via stifled growth. That social contract doesn't work.

Nevermind that _right now_ per capital emissions and pollution and leads to similar policy implications. It's not just our ancestors overconsuming , it's us