>any change that would result in less money for the wealthy
The majority of CO2 emissions aren't from wealthy nations but developing nations - this might not be true in per capita terms, but the atmosphere doesn't care about per capita terms.
A molecule is a molecule, and if you want fewer of them in the atmosphere, then you can't blame the wealthy - there simply aren't that many of them. It's the regular people who would need to cut back, and that's especially unfair when it's being asked of people whose economies never fully developed in the first place.
My perception of the elites in western society is that most could not be more clear about the existence and threat of climate change.
It's popular to mock them for using private planes or using their yachts, but that sort of activity is dwarfed - by orders of magnitude - by cement production in China, or steel from India.
My point is that, whether they do so intentionally or not, wealthy folks(not just western mind you) exert influence and shape policy. This includes financial as well as political capital garnered.
> “In this way,” says Starr, “we could really incentivize the Americans who are driving and profiting the most from climate change to decarbonize their industries and investments. It’s divestment through self-interest, rather than altruism. Imagine how quickly corporate executives, board members and large shareholders would decarbonize their industries if we made it in their financial interest to do so. The tax revenue gained could help the nation invest substantially in decarbonization efforts.”
And your conclusion is... that there's nothing we can or should do?
Mine is that the wealthy should risk their money in order to invest in more sustainable economies for those less developed nations. That would solve the problem, right? Wonder why they won't do it...
> any change that would result in less money for the wealthy
>the wealthy should risk their money in order to invest in more sustainable economies for those less developed nations. That would solve the problem, right?
No. This seems incoherent to me - you are blaming the wealthy for inaction due to their greed, then claiming those same greedy people would be able to solve the problem if they invested in developing economies.
It seems far more likely that they would just use those investments as new avenues for control / extraction, as we've seen for centuries. Or are you expecting those greedy wealthy people to just start being altruistic?
I'm not claiming to have a solution. It's very tricky and I doubt a neat solution exists, unless we stumble unto some incredible new technology. It's about tradeoffs instead, and then that becomes a political question. The answer isn't "blame the rich."
The majority of CO2 emissions aren't from wealthy nations but developing nations - this might not be true in per capita terms, but the atmosphere doesn't care about per capita terms.
A molecule is a molecule, and if you want fewer of them in the atmosphere, then you can't blame the wealthy - there simply aren't that many of them. It's the regular people who would need to cut back, and that's especially unfair when it's being asked of people whose economies never fully developed in the first place.