Additionaly - developing countries are developing because they started to polute later. They are now punished again by being prohibited from abusing einvironment the same (cheap) way that developed countries did before.
That means rich countries will remain richer than poor countries because they can afford massive investment into infrastructure to switch to cleaner alternatives, while poor countries will need to adjust by using less power, producing less goods etc.
You basically ask poor countries to be poorer to stop effect that doesn't matter to many of them (or even could be positive).
Without artifical incentives it will be VERY hard sell. And right now the only incentives proposed are negative (tax on CO2 emmision).
What if developed countries PAID poor countries that would benefit from global warming to switch to cleaner energy sources? But that's taboo as well.
Actually, at least for the global warming issues, the poor countries are going to be the ones that generally get the worst effects and also have the least ability to mitigate those effects with limited human casualties. And the countries that are likely to get some positive agricultural benefit are the northern countries which are among the most developed countries in the world.
Netherlands has cities multiple meters below sea level. The western major coastal cities can be shielded from a few meters of sea level increase - it would cost immense (but still realistic) amounts of money, but the heavily inhabited coastal regions of poor countries will simply drown and cause many millions of displaced poor people.
The effects matter to the poor countries more than everybody else. I'd say there are two reasons why they're not doing anything to stop it - first is the tragedy of commons, as it makes no sense for, say, Bangladesh (probably risking the worst effects from global warming) to stop emissions if China isn't doing the same; and second is simply that they can't afford to pay today for a larger benefit tomorrow; in the same manner as poor people often simply can't pay $10 now to prevent a certain $50 loss in a month.
Additionaly - developing countries are developing because they started to polute later. They are now punished again by being prohibited from abusing einvironment the same (cheap) way that developed countries did before.
That means rich countries will remain richer than poor countries because they can afford massive investment into infrastructure to switch to cleaner alternatives, while poor countries will need to adjust by using less power, producing less goods etc.
You basically ask poor countries to be poorer to stop effect that doesn't matter to many of them (or even could be positive).
Without artifical incentives it will be VERY hard sell. And right now the only incentives proposed are negative (tax on CO2 emmision).
What if developed countries PAID poor countries that would benefit from global warming to switch to cleaner energy sources? But that's taboo as well.