[mc32]

I think that statement is misleading because:

"...China whose 2010 urban per capita emissions are larger than the national value but with much slower growth. [It could be...] the result of an explicit policy to move high-emissions industries away from cities, trading-off urban and non-urban CO2 emission..."

I'm not proposing anything. What I'm saying is outside of magic, the options are limited. Get developed countries to degrade their economies or get developing countries to stymie their development or have all countries freeze their population growth via infertility of one form or another (obviously you can't ask them to reduce the current pops).

[sorcerer-mar]

Tax emissions, incentivize density, and let the market work.

We have already made massive strides against this problem. Yes it will require some sacrifices (like wealthier nations helping developing nations to leapfrog into lower-emission technologies), but what is the alternative? We just sit here and die? It's a bit premature to have come to this conclusion.

[mc32]

So tax charcoal and wood used by the poorest of the poor too or are we allowing exceptions? What do we do about seasonal burnings some people engage in to prepare and fertilize their lands?

[sorcerer-mar]

Yes we should disincentivize continuation of these practices and incentivize adoption of different practices.

No, we obviously shouldn’t be so extreme that we trigger famines. This isn’t even remotely necessary anyway given that the people you mention aren’t major polluters.