Even Thatcher in speeches back in the 80s about CO2, NO2 and CFCs acknowledged the West should pay more by dint of being already developed. CO2 action was marked by how insignificant it was, starting with Chile that was ineffectual in the extreme. CFCs got backing from Reagan, though Carter had already started a phase out in aerosols, CO2 didn't. I've seen some claims that in part that backing was because Reagan had had skin cancer in the early 80s.
The current generation of politicians around the globe seem content to ignore any sense of responsibility either globally or locally.
Sure there's much to be embarrassed of being British, continuing into the modern era by our status as national laughing stock over the last 3 years. Yet there's much you don't mention, like the African slave trade having hundreds of years of African raids on European coasts, as far north as Britain and Ireland, occasionally Iceland, or the Barbary pirates and millions of Europeans having gone through. The Western Europeans didn't invent that, they continued it in developed markets that were endemic in the local culture.
I wish we hadn't, I wish we had abolished it earlier, but it's not as black and white as you paint it.
The earliest interactions of West and India was much more modern in outlook - intermarriage was commonplace, racism came later as we move well into the 19th century. So commonplace that it was actually encouraged. Many converted too. By the mid 19th century that history was being discouraged and whitewashed out of existence.
We are where we are, and cannot change the mores of English, Indian, or any other nation or continent, but trying to view the whole of history with 21st century outlook is a minefield, fraught with tripwires, "reasons" and exceptions. 300 years of every nation's history will reveal plenty we might wish hadn't happened.
TL;DR Britain and the other developed nations should be doing far, far more to aid the developing world on climate. Simply because we're developed. Britain could start by banning fossil fuel projects in our overseas aid, which is a bloody embarrassment, and replacing with more future oriented projects.
Eventually, hopefully soon enough, we're going to have to accept we can't let the developing world off the hook on carbon treaties. As they develop 10 or 20 years past the treaty to emit like India and China yet still count as developing countries with no commitment to meet. The developed nations will have to accept they're probably going to have to pay for that. Otherwise we're probably screwed, because I doubt anyone is going to accept "well you just have to stay undeveloped for the good of the planet".
> The current generation of politicians around the globe seem content to ignore any sense of responsibility either globally or locally.
Absolutely, they are because the people who vote them in are as well.
Look, at the end of the day, no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary. At a deeply unconscious level we realize this, but our conscious self has to rationalize it. We cannot admit to ourselves that we are this terrible at an individual level, so obviously it must be someone else's fault:
* That handful of climate change deniers who somehow stop >99% of us from taking action.
* Those evil capitalists who would bend over backwards to charge us more for environmentally friendly products if we were actually willing to pay for them.
* Those careless politicians who could make their career on a long-term issue like environment if that were the deciding issue for people's votes.
* Those evil white colonizers who set this all in motion centuries ago.
* That other country who is emitting more pollution than my country is
And so on.
Because at the end of the day I am the victim in all this. I did my part. I stopped using plastic straws.
But I am not willing to make any meaningful sacrifice towards this, and I know this makes me a terrible person.
> Absolutely, they are because the people who vote them in are as well.
That's too simplistic.
I get a choice of the red team, or the blue team, neither of whom are much better than each other in this regard, but actually have a chance of being elected.
I can vote for the yellow or green teams, but they haven't a hope in hell of forming a government. Maybe they'll soon be able to carry the balance of power. Not soon enough for me, so...
Who do I vote for?
Yet electors (in the UK) poll as seeing climate as more important than Brexit (66% IIRC), and that government should be taking far more substantial action, and across the political divide. n.b. Just about no one voted Cameron in to get a Brexit referendum - that was Tory internal shenanigans to manage their extreme fringe, and a fairly fringe issue until it got blown out of proportion. That fringe are now running the country, unelected, without manifesto. Or other countries where they elect whoever because the alternative made themselves unelectable, was too arrogant, complacent, or there was a scandal, etc.
Hence the point about we are where we are - we can only start from there. Events will increasingly force the issue, regardless of the excuse(s) the business or politician wants to hide behind.
The current generation of politicians around the globe seem content to ignore any sense of responsibility either globally or locally.
Sure there's much to be embarrassed of being British, continuing into the modern era by our status as national laughing stock over the last 3 years. Yet there's much you don't mention, like the African slave trade having hundreds of years of African raids on European coasts, as far north as Britain and Ireland, occasionally Iceland, or the Barbary pirates and millions of Europeans having gone through. The Western Europeans didn't invent that, they continued it in developed markets that were endemic in the local culture.
I wish we hadn't, I wish we had abolished it earlier, but it's not as black and white as you paint it.
The earliest interactions of West and India was much more modern in outlook - intermarriage was commonplace, racism came later as we move well into the 19th century. So commonplace that it was actually encouraged. Many converted too. By the mid 19th century that history was being discouraged and whitewashed out of existence.
We are where we are, and cannot change the mores of English, Indian, or any other nation or continent, but trying to view the whole of history with 21st century outlook is a minefield, fraught with tripwires, "reasons" and exceptions. 300 years of every nation's history will reveal plenty we might wish hadn't happened.
TL;DR Britain and the other developed nations should be doing far, far more to aid the developing world on climate. Simply because we're developed. Britain could start by banning fossil fuel projects in our overseas aid, which is a bloody embarrassment, and replacing with more future oriented projects.
Eventually, hopefully soon enough, we're going to have to accept we can't let the developing world off the hook on carbon treaties. As they develop 10 or 20 years past the treaty to emit like India and China yet still count as developing countries with no commitment to meet. The developed nations will have to accept they're probably going to have to pay for that. Otherwise we're probably screwed, because I doubt anyone is going to accept "well you just have to stay undeveloped for the good of the planet".