DO YOU THINK THAT IT IS REASONABLE THAT DEVELOPED AND FAST-DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SUCH AS CHINA AND INDIA CLAIM THAT THE TARGET OF 350PPM WOULD "RETARD ECONOMIC GROWTH"?
There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
Do you think that it is reasonable that developed and fast-developing countries such as China and India claim that the target of 350ppm would "retard economic growth"?
No, because... There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
The main focus has to be economic development: When you have money you can spend it in other areas; if money is not pouring in you cannot attend other areas of development since you cannot fund them.
The B.R.I.C reason for not being environmentally friendly is
1.Retarded economic growth means less money thus less power to make and achieve targets
2. The U.S won't budge while being much better off economically and also being crucial as a world leader, Why should countries with emerging economies 'give up' growth for the environment when since the U.S is not doing anything significant while not having to 'give up' anything?
How can there be sustainable development if the only focus is economic development?
Point 1. There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
How can there be sustainable development if the only focus is economic development?
The main focus has to be economic development: When you have money you can spend it in other areas; if money is not pouring in you cannot attend other areas of development since you cannot fund them.
The B.R.I.C reason for not being environmentally friendly is
1.Retarded economic growth means less money thus less power to make and achieve targets
2. The U.S won't budge while being much better off economically and also being crucial as a world leader, Why should countries with emerging economies 'give up' growth for the environment when since the U.S is not doing anything significant while not having to 'give up' anything?