> "We should straight get the bigger economies to shoulder infra construction in weaker economies no strings attached"
Who is meant by "we" in this sentence? And in what ways do you consider that it's plausible to "get them to shoulder it" in excess of whatever they freely choose to do?
> We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it.
Citation needed - the IPCC published worst case scenarios are far from extinction, and especially in the countries which would shoulder the burden the expected damage the local consequences are "very bad" in the sense that a few percent decrease in GDP growth is an enormously large economic damage. It's not clear if spending 5% of GDP on that (or much more, if you expect them to "shoulder the burden" as well) would be worth it for them, since they'll have to invest in local mitigations anyway due to the already accumulated greenhouse gases.
5% of global gross product is a lot. For example, it's more than what the world affords to spend on all kinds of education together. It's far more than what would cost to truly eliminate world hunger and most major diseases. It's an order of magnitude more than what the world has devoted for charitable purposes. It's literally the equivalent of mobilizing 400 million people to work only on that thing - if the expected bad consequences of climate change are e.g. 200 million displaced people, then that's very bad, but it's not worth to have 400 million people devote their lives to prevent 200 million from needing to migrate.
Who is meant by "we" in this sentence? And in what ways do you consider that it's plausible to "get them to shoulder it" in excess of whatever they freely choose to do?
> We’re all extinct anyway if we don’t do it.
Citation needed - the IPCC published worst case scenarios are far from extinction, and especially in the countries which would shoulder the burden the expected damage the local consequences are "very bad" in the sense that a few percent decrease in GDP growth is an enormously large economic damage. It's not clear if spending 5% of GDP on that (or much more, if you expect them to "shoulder the burden" as well) would be worth it for them, since they'll have to invest in local mitigations anyway due to the already accumulated greenhouse gases.
5% of global gross product is a lot. For example, it's more than what the world affords to spend on all kinds of education together. It's far more than what would cost to truly eliminate world hunger and most major diseases. It's an order of magnitude more than what the world has devoted for charitable purposes. It's literally the equivalent of mobilizing 400 million people to work only on that thing - if the expected bad consequences of climate change are e.g. 200 million displaced people, then that's very bad, but it's not worth to have 400 million people devote their lives to prevent 200 million from needing to migrate.