> as long as we're actually headed for that net zero we're going to be in reasonably good shape?

Only as long as we actually reach net zero by 2050, is my understanding.

This. Also because it's not like low income countries are going to stay low emission forever.

If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.

They are people just like you and me who are just a little bit behind in the development curve and they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle.

Countries who are currently high emitters but also applying active measures to curb it must be praised instead of pointing fingers. The political will to improve things is fragile and people can easily vote for populists that will easily exploit resistance towards guilt shaming.

>If you think about it, that's disrespectful towards people living there; they are not noble savages.... they will surely want to have all the goodies that we have and emit all the greenhouse gasses associated with that lifestyle.

The hope is that whatever the developed world has settled on by 2050 to achieve net zero, lower-income countries will be able to switch to directly instead of going through a phase of fossil fuel consumption. China was too early; India for example might see a much healthier trajectory. The association of greenhouse gasses with the lifestyle of the richest countries is hoped to be only incidental.

It's possible, just like many countries have jumped straight to mobile phone and avoided wired infrastructure.

In any case, that's the result of continuous improvement and progress and my point was that we cannot get there by just shaming countries that are making that incremental progress right now.

2 degrees C is not a good outcome for the world, it’s just a moderately aggressive target that we might be able to hit. The world will still be changed significantly if we do manage to hit the 2C target (which isn’t a given). Working to reduce our output more before then would certainly be better.

I mean "good" in the sense of long-term achievement of reasonably high quality of life for humanity, without a collapse in human population. (My understanding is that if there are no catastrophes, the current trajectory is expected to level out somewhere around 11 billion. Of course, if we also happen as a species to make radical progress on life extension, that will also have to weigh in to long-term changes in reproductive behaviour, etc.)

Of course we should all do what we can. (I eat less meat than I used to, and don't drive.)