Dont say "saving the planet". The planet will be here for a long (long) time. No matter how hot or cold it ll be.

Fine, saving civilization. Saving the environment. In the case of India, saving their kids... What's 2 more Celsius going to mean for droughts and heatwaves in India? Worst-case scenario we're talking about hundreds of millions f refugees fleeing countries that are no longer suitable for human habitation.

I'd say humans are much more resilient than you think, and Indians probably even more so, because they are used to hard life.

Or, to say it another way, many parts of India or other countries at this latitude have never been "suitable for human habitation" compared to e.g. France and her tempered climate. But humans adapted to this place, and will adapt to 2 degrees more if needs be.

This pedantry is not constructive.

I'm not sure it's pedantry. We're so used to the pretty Hollywood storyline that I think people assume that any climate issue will just turn out okay in the end. But of course, Nature doesn't have the capacity for happy endings — that's a human construction. We could easily become nothing but a footnote in the history of the planet, if we're not careful here.

Pretty much every species which has roamed the planet has gone extinct. Nature is tough. I think that's the point of emphasizing the phrasing.

Allocating every country the same per-capita quota of emission would be both fair, _and_ would save the planet, if the quota is low enough and exchangeable. But that would imply that we, the high per-capita polluting countries would pay money to poor countries like India to buy their excess quota.

Fair would also be to impose a maximum fertility rate. When the fertility rate is off the charts for the developing countries, unfair is the per capita quota.

If the goal is for humanity to survive on this planet, then clearly an exponential growth in population isn't sustainable. More fair would be to have quotas per square meter actually.

Sure let's have quotas per sq meter of arable land adjusted for number of crops you can grow in a year? Or better still on yield of the soil. Makes more sense than a straight per sq m quota.

Except you need the Indian and Chinese person to accept a worse quality of life for the cuts to work. It's tough to make that argument when it doesn't feel fair (and even tougher to get it to stick)

It's unfortunately true that you need to get them to accept a slightly stunted quality of life. But expecting him/her/them to do that without leading by example and also making sacrifices is the highest order of duchebaggery.

If weather patterns change to the point that agriculture collapses the poor jealous Indian villagers won't be any better off.

A voter living in squalor may not see it the same way, especially when the more fortunate ones are not making the same sacrifices.