Call me a conspiracy theorist, but
1. Rich nations see developing nations growing rapidly, relying, as the rich nations do, on oil, coal, etc etc
2. Rich nations start to demonize and do all they can to force developing nations to stop using coal, gas, etc and only use renewable energy.
3. Rich nations stay rich, poor stay poor.
That seems to be a benefit for rich nations to push such an agenda.
Re:Why I Canceled My CO2stats Account
by gravitycop on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:12PM
(#430936)
If the poor became richer, how would that hurt the rich?
If the poor become richer, then you become poorer relative to them :/ Surely...
Re:Why I Canceled My CO2stats Account
by gravitycop on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:24PM
(#430964)
How could a change in mere relative level of richness hurt one?
Let us assume that richness is freedom from need.
Well for a start, if poor nations become rich, they may not want to continue working for a pittance to satisfy the richer nations whims. Prices may go up pretty fast.
Also, if the poorer nations are using all the coal+oil, there's going to be less for the rich nations... again, making prices rise.
Re:Why I Canceled My CO2stats Account
by run4yourlives on Monday January 12, 2009 @01:58PM
(#430914)
Nothing has changed, and yes the same argument holds true regardless of climate change. Being carbon neutral means that resources are being used at the same rate they are being created, ergo, sustainability.
Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?
I don't honestly know.
Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?