3 ms·
You can also put it the other way around: Qatar without fossil fuels (and therefore without the climate change they entail) probably wouldn't exist at all excep
by Udik 7y ago
You can also put it the other way around: Qatar without fossil fuels (and therefore without the climate change they entail) probably wouldn't exist at all except for few, poor and sparse settlements.
If you were a citizen of Qatar, what do you think would be your choice: to be poor in a desertic country with max summer temperatures of 40 degrees, or to be rich in a country so prosperous that can afford outdoor air conditioning in between its skyscrapers?
- ceejayoz 7y agoReminder that the latter option is significantly propped up by modern-day slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Slavery Being sustainably poor might also wind up being better than a collapsing state after oil revenues run out.
- Udik 7y agoI'm not defending Qatar in general. I'm just trying to suggest, with a real example, that there are cases in which climate change might be preferable to climate change mitigation. Qatar is an extreme case, but when we think of the climate change issue we seem to forget just how much wealth we got from fossil fuels and therefore, in some sense, how much we benefited and keep benefiting from climate change. But of course it's easier to just click on the downvote button and forget about it. > Being sustainably poor might also wind up being better than a collapsing state after oil revenues run out. Oil revenues will run out with efforts to move away from fossil fuels. So the collapse of the country is not one of two options, it will be the result of the mitigation efforts.