The pain of climate change will be harder for developed countries to stomach and so they should be more willing to pay to avoid and mitigate it. Consider the forest fires on the west coast of the US this year. They occupied the news cycle for a week. But they killed just 30-40 people. Floods in Bangladesh regularly kill hundreds of thousands of people every year and people for the most part go on with their lives.

Because it really makes more sense to plan for the eventuality where anything we do makes a difference than the far more likely one where this entire trainwreck just keeps going straight toward a wall. Sure you get some real points for cynicism before rock meets hard place, but it doesn't count for much outside of that.

I of course agree we should do something. I just disagree with the logic that the entire burden falls on developed countries. As well as the magnitude of that burden. Going carbon negative as the parent comment said developed countries "will have to" do, is an incredibly challenging and costly feat.

I didn't say they would jeopardize their growth. I said they would learn. They might use coal, but it will be a 60% efficient not 1% efficient system like what we used for the first steam engines.