I can tell from your review that you're a regular reader of The Economist. I’m not trying to defend China’s coal-fired power plants or take a stance on the pros and cons of nuclear energy (and I assume you may have read about Trump’s executive order instructing government agencies to increase coal-generated electricity production). I simply want to raise a question:
Global warming began with the massive greenhouse gas emissions that followed the Industrial Revolution. Developed countries have already completed their industrial transitions and enjoyed many years of prosperity. Meanwhile, in many parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, people are still struggling with poverty and hunger.
Of course, addressing global warming is essential. But if the burden of curbing climate change falls disproportionately on developing countries—at the cost of their own development—is that truly fair? Could that not be seen as a form of climate chauvinism?
Global warming began with the massive greenhouse gas emissions that followed the Industrial Revolution. Developed countries have already completed their industrial transitions and enjoyed many years of prosperity. Meanwhile, in many parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, people are still struggling with poverty and hunger.
Of course, addressing global warming is essential. But if the burden of curbing climate change falls disproportionately on developing countries—at the cost of their own development—is that truly fair? Could that not be seen as a form of climate chauvinism?