I feel the better arguement is that per capital these countries are lower polluters and we need to all strive to reduce pollution to an acceptable per-capita level. And as a global population need to look at how we lift everyone lifestyle while reducing environmental harm. This 'you had your turn polluting the world and now it's mine' lacks logic and will not solve the problem.

Except the better tech tends to be more expensive and less labor intensive. A country with a huge cheap labor force would handicap itself by not using the most cost effective means to grow their economy, negative externalities notwithstanding.

Or in other words - it explains it, but doesn't justify it. We as mankind can do better

Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...

Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.

Syrias civil war began after billions of dollars where somewhat clandestinely spent on fomenting violent revolution there - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawma...

Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'

No I am not the one making two sentence cryptic and insulting, dishonest accusations.

I'm done with this.

If we wont stop attacking people, we wont stop wrecking the environment.