Thus the question of humanity comes back in an interesting way.
If you think climate change through capitalism, you are not required to think of more than 400-500 years. And you may then go forwards another two centuries.
Whereas the scientists think in terms of thousands and millions of years.
People who don't like capitalism. DC a mild member of that. “Here is another reason why we should get rid of it.”
People who like it. Stearne, etc. “Okay, here is yet another challenge to capitalism. We will show you how the market is the best solution.”
So DC is going to talk about the justice argument. Chicago law, Debbie Weisbach and Eric Posner, Climate Justice, argues against the proposition that the polluters (the West) should pay. Yet the most intuitive position is, “You developed nations did it, so you should pay.”
This position is first stated by two Indian environmentalists in 1991. “A Case for Environmental Colonialism.” Response to a report that global warming would create an opportunity for the whole world to act together. A 1960s third world-ism informs the response, a distrust of the West.
The argument that countries such as India and China should share the blame is an e.g. of environmental colonialism. There is a long life of the story of colonialism. The fairest position would be if you calculated the emissions from each country on a per capita basis: >> Indian activist position. >> Rio and Kyoto. It's intuitively the strongest argument.
Distinction between luxury and survival emissions. “One world-ism” is simply on this view old imperialism in a new guise. Has a very strong hold on people. Thus when DC wrote on postcolonialism and climate change, the editorial responses were very critical: Simon During, e.g. responded in exactly this way. Climate change is really the old empire. He is covering up what Hardt and Negri talk about. And so on. (cont.)