3 ms·
This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever. If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living
by ithkuil 2y ago
This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever.
If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.
They are people just like you and me who are just a little bit behind in the development curve and they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle.
Countries who are currently high emitters but also applying active measures to curb it must be praised instead of pointing fingers. The political will to improve things is fragile and people can easily vote for populists that will easily exploit resistance towards guilt shaming.
- zahlman 2y ago>If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.... they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle. The hope is that whatever the developed world has settled on by 2050 to achieve net zero, lower-income countries will be able to switch to directly instead of going through a phase of fossil fuel consumption. China was too early; India for example might see a much healthier trajectory. The association of greenhouse gasses with the lifestyle of the richest countries is hoped to be only incidental.
- ithkuil 2y agoIt's possible, just like many countries have jumped straight to mobile phone and avoided wired infrastructure. In any case, that's the result of continuous improvement and progress and my point was that we cannot get there by just shaming countries that are making that incremental progress right now.