you want those sectors to fail but they are responsible for modern life. so what is the trade off? greatly improved life, & some env impact? or 1900's life & no env impact?
The change would require investment, but is an investment that would lower future costs. We know that climate change will require costly actions. The less climate change the less cost.
No, you are convinced they need to fail and you feel entitled to tell the rest of us what is good for us. Fossil fuels are the easiest tech to become developed.
It isn't about entitlement. You underestimate the damage their industry does. In the very least we need to use a carbon tax to make them pay for some of their damage.
So by all means force developing nations to stop using it.
