Ignoring historical and per-capita emissions isn't "pragmatic," it's blame-shifting. You're right to bring up "exported emissions," but you have the direction

Ignoring historical and per-capita emissions isn't "pragmatic," it's blame-shifting. You're right to bring up "exported emissions," but you have the direction backward. The primary "carbon transfer" is from China, acting as the world's factory to meet consumer demand in the West. You can't outsource your carbon footprint and then blame the manufacturer. If we're truly going to discard fairness for "maximum efficiency" in emissions reduction, then we should target one of the biggest and easiest sources: diet. Data: Producing 1 kg of beef emits ~60-100 kg of CO₂e. Producing 1 kg of pork emits only ~7-12 kg of CO₂e. Proposal: A global ban on beef and dairy, switching to pork and poultry. The emissions saved by this simple consumer choice would surpass the total efforts of many nations. This proposal sounds absurd, right? It infringes on culture and personal choice. And that is precisely the point: any climate solution that ignores fairness, responsibility, and context is, in itself, absurd. The right to development is a human right.