What matters is fantasy when it isn't politically feasible. The only consensus for an emissions regulatory framework is going to be based on per capita. Growing

What matters is fantasy when it isn't politically feasible. The only consensus for an emissions regulatory framework is going to be based on per capita. Growing populous countries with the most say will never agree to anything else which is counter to their interests, i.e. China could propose a framework based on de-growth since the PRC population is set to decline to less than 1B by the end of the century, but western countries that rely on growth via immigration would never be up for it even if ultimately de-growth is the more pragmatic solution. Reality is also going to be that emission standards will be based on historic per capita emissions since developing countries will need to catch up on new infra emissions which western nations hide in historic emission data. Reality is global warming is less politically existential than poverty and development for domestic politics for many countries, as long as it kills others more than yourself, even if it ultimately kills everyone. This highlights the even more unpalatable reality that there are climate change winners and losers. Climate change discussions remind me of covid19 policy wank and panic control but stretched out over decades. Many of us were fairly confident covid19 was going to be a pandemic we’ll have to live with, that’s just reality when most of the world do not have capability to respond properly. There’s a lot of interventions and technologies leading countries can export to mitigate, but ultimately everyone has to come to an understanding that we can’t stop climate change due to political realities.