The most developed countries should show us an example then. I am not Argentinian or from South America at all, but we have the same problems. As long as an average American keeps their consumption levels at more than 10× of ours, I am not listening to what they think we should or shouldn't do. Same for other poor countries, I guess.

That's the spirit. There really is no other way than development. If we try to go back to 19th-century resource consumption and CO2 emissions we also need 19th-century population numbers. If the "degrowth" (a euphemism for poverty and societal collapse) movement got absolute power that will be precisely the result, intentional or not.

This is such a tired argument. The socialist block was, at least by the 1980s, much more wasteful and destructive to the environment than the capitalist world. I encourage you to search for videos like "1980s krakow winter" or "Elbe river GDR" to see a few examples. Then for comparison research when capitalist countries passed their various environmental protection laws.

More than that, it's easy to make abstract statements like "we need to slow down", but how do you imagine that could be done? Who decides which sectors need to be frozen and how do we make sure we don't accidentally starve millions of Africans while doing it (look up food self-sufficiency numbers)?

> Then for comparison research when capitalist countries passed their various environmental protection laws.

Then, for comparison, research the position people describing themselves as libertarians hold and held on the existence of these laws...

(I'm not a big fan of blanket statements on growth like "we should slow down" either, but libertarians deserve no more credit for the enactment of environmental laws they campaigned against than Stalinists do for the reunification of Germany)

My comment was specifically a response to the "because it is capitalism on steroids" line of reasoning which implied that global warming and environment destruction are consequences of capitalism.