Paul GrahamVerified account

It's strange to suggest that someone living on a dollar or less a day has the luxury to care about the environment. Interest in solving future problems only comes after immediate ones are managable. Retirement is analogous. Only financial stable people tend to see it as important

Bingo!

The vast majority of emissions come from the slow growing rich countries. Also, the rich countries drive most of the emissions from of global south via resource extraction. It's the richest 10% of the world that did the most damage.

It's surely the *model* of growth that is damaging, not growth per se. Growth that is extractive - using the cheapest materials for the cheapest products - is optimised only for economic utility. Now is the time for models of growth that restore and regenerate the environment

Push far enough and you will find a divide between human reproductive rights people and population control people. In regards to the environment and how to manage

The only argument against this conclusion is that Europe has "delegated" it's CO2 emissions to China et al.

Looking at the graph, the emissions per capita may be decreasing faster than the growth in population. This could be an aggregate net positive (requires further analysis). The decrease is shown as a straight line but I wonder if it’s a curve depending on stage of development