All it cares about is the absolute number of tons of CO2 and methane we add to the atmosphere annually. In the end, we're ALL going to have to pay a heavy price. Most likely, the American standard of living will have to fall, and millions (billions?) of people around the world hoping to be lifted from poverty will see themselves staying there. We're talking about a global mass extinction event in the works; what makes you think anything about what could possibly be the largest planetary die-off since the dinosaurs will be fair?
Obviously we need to work on solutions that do not doom most humans to abject poverty (and allow a small number to maintain a nice, high-polluting lifestyle) in order to save the planet.
That's nice. It's been the standard line for the past 30+ years since we started discussing climate change seriously. And it's failed absolutely. Every attempt that has been made to find a solution that combines a high standard of living and an actual reduction in climate-altering gases has failed, as evident by the fact we're now at the highest PPM of CO2 in 3 million years and the Arctic ice cap is in a death spiral, despite large increases in the number of renewable and green tech introduced. Ultimately, the problem boils down to the fact we've exceeded this carrying capacity of the planet by several billion humans, yet we are loath to bring up this uncomfortable point in honest discussion. In all actuality, we have probably run out of time to keep working on any viable solutions to prevent catastrophic warming while maintaining an ever-growing, ever-consuming global society, given how much warming is already "baked into the cake", so to speak, and the threat that positive feedback loops pose as temperatures continue to rise.
Ultimately, the problem boils down to the fact we've exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet by several billion humans, and insist on adding billions more, yet we are loath to bring up this uncomfortable point in honest discussion.
= new reply since forum marked as read