Sure, but history is immutable. The only thing we can change is future emissions.

History can determine who should have the highest remaining allowance.

What you will find is that everyone will have a reason why they aren't as bad as the other group, and forge on as though it's someone else's problem. There is always someone else who is more to blame, more at fault.

That sounds like a cop out. The historical data is accurate. And there is a historical basis for reparations being a thing that works. Similar things have been done successfully before. The best way to get countries to drop out and not participate is for countries to feel like it's not a fair deal. Make it a fair deal and you attract everyone to the table.

That's how it works though. What you end up with is different groups looking at different data to support whatever narrative is convenient for them. Then they call the other people idiots who can't see what is blatantly obvious.

That's not how it works and that's not what you end up with. See how easy that is? I'm stopping here because this discussion has far more noise than signal.

> That's not how it works and that's not what you end up with.

I'll invite you to consider the difficulty in getting people to agree in a question so trivial as to whether to wear masks i public in 2020.