• poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think that is a bit of an artifact of them being simply richer and having better infrastructure. Similar to Japan having very few deaths due to earthquakes despite being hit by very strong ones regularly. And of course the world market allowing rich countries to offset food shortages and such much more easily.

    • Chaf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Ah, now we finally have a point where I disagree :) However I’m not sure if this is the right place to discuss this further, but I’ll go one level deeper ^^

      Yes, having more money and better infrastructure makes it easier to survive natural catastrophes, but I’d argue there is a strong relation between “simply being richer and having better infrastructure” and “emitting more CO2”. A lot of economic growth came from access to cheap energy, for which those countries went out of their ways to make sure they get it.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Sure, I am not disagreeing with that, but when purely looking at the climate change that is happening around the world, the northern latitudes are actually experiencing more change, and it would be foolish for the rich countries to think the impacts are something that only affects poor nations in the global south. The rich countries simply have more coping capacity left right now, but when that is exhausted they will be likely more impacted and with a population much less prepared for it.