[taurknaut]

Why not both? We've been claiming to want to reduce carbon emissions since before I was born. It's not even a hard pitch—if we're insanely wealthy and have the capacity to discuss greening our grid and still can't or won't, why would you reasonably expect countries with basically no capacity to do this to forget about centuries of globalization, colonization, and exploitation? We burned the globe; if we want to heal this, the most reasonable approach is good-faith reconciliation and remediation.

But the way conversation is now we're headed straight towards ecofascism. A healthy globe for me but not for thee (as if this even makes much sense).

[bruce511]

You're right.

It's convenient for the US to blame "developing economies" (especially China) for the problem. Solutions like "buying off other countries" make sense. (And in itself is not a bad idea.) But it's a deflection from the bigger issue which is consumption at home.

But as long as we can make it a "them " problem, our population doesn't have to feel guilt, or understand they are the people who need to change.

[nradov]

Sounds good I'm theory but tough to put into practice. Regardless of the environmental consequences there is no way that voters in wealthy countries will agree to subsidize hostile regimes. And many of those countries are so deeply corrupt that the majority of funding tends to be stolen by corrupt politicians or building contractors.