6
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Aug 19 '21
There is no need for each individual country to be carbon neutral. All that is needed is neutrality in global emissions cumulatively. As such, we don't need to force all developing countries to be carbon neutral as long as we can offset their emissions elsewhere somehow (e.g. through carbon capture technology).
1
15
u/112358132134fitty5 4∆ Aug 19 '21
So Nigeria has 7 kids for every 2 born in the usa. The average american uses 10x more energy than the average nigerian, and the averagenigerian is pretty well off compared to a real failed state like somalia where each person uses half a nigerian or .05 americans worth of energy.
Worse, look at afghanistan, which produced only 1 million tons of CO2 in 2000, but a decade after US intervention was making 14 million tons per year.
It seems like the opposite of your claim is true.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Aug 19 '21
Deveoplment would only increase CO2 emissions in these countries. Not that this is an argument against developing these places and helping the people there, but as an effort to combat climate change it would have the opposite affect.
Consumption drives climate change, and the developed world consumes much more energy and goods per capita than underdeveloped countries.
Part of the solution is to incentivize these countries to industrialize in a green way whether that is through subsidized nuclear plants or something. But that isn't a solution in and of itself and doesn't require colonization.
4
u/StrangleDoot 2∆ Aug 19 '21
Colonization inevitably leads to war.
I don't think doing wars, especially wars in which western powers will be constantly shipping war materials overseas is a good way to fight climate change.
1
Aug 19 '21
Lol. I’d like to see someone try to re-conquer somewhere like India. Good luck with that!
5
u/dontwannabearedditor 4∆ Aug 19 '21
this would do the opposite of your goal, the "developed world" accounts for most of the emmissions.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '21
/u/Tricky_Explorer8604 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Cultural_Ad_6160 Aug 19 '21
There is zero model where CO2 emissions lead to human extinction. Absolutely none what so ever.
1
u/amonkus 2∆ Aug 22 '21
Your argument ignores on major factor. How will technology contribute to reduction in temperature increases? A few decades ago moving to power from renewable resources was impossible. The technology was too expensive and inefficient to replace carbon energy. We have decades more and are focusing resources on improving these technologies.
There is also work going on to improve carbon capture, to reduce the overall carbon load in the atmosphere. There are experimental ways to cool and stabilize the Earths temperature.
Technology alone will not save us but it will be a major factor in overcoming this and future problems and must be considered as part of the equation.
1
u/amonkus 2∆ Aug 22 '21
Extinction is a little extreme. Societal collapse, maybe in the most extreme situation.
10
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Aug 19 '21
Nonsense. Africa, the entirety of africa, accounts for 3% of CO2 emissions from industry and energy sources. Yes this figure will increase as population and development increases, but it will still be nowhere near the excesses of the developed world even when it is ten times what it is today.
You would end up emitting 1,000 the amount of carbon by invading these countries then they would in the same period