3 ms·
I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development. 100-200 years ago, every modern developed ec
by screye 8y ago
I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development.
100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last 2 centuries.
Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the same. Why should they use more expensive and cleaner fuel as payment for a problem that's not their fault ?
I see the fault in my own argument, which is that we are all on this together and massive collective action is the only recourse we have.
But, the perceived injustice faced by underveloped countries is probably not misplaced.
The onus is certainly on the west to take an initiative.
- toast0 8y agoThe onus is definitely on the existing developed nations to persuade developing nations not to deforest. That likely means paying to protect the forests, and also to encourage the kind of economic development that would have happened with deforestation as well. All of the timber logistics and processing industry, as well as the agriculture that would develop in the cleared lands is compelling. Certainly maintaining pristine forests employs some people and could promote tourism (depending on access issues), but that doesn't really compare. But developing countries also crave independence and self-sufficiency, so it must be done with a light touch.