I apologize for my parent comment, it was terrible. I just don't know how to respond to the the broad idea complex that we need less/no economic growth. The way I see it there are two ways it could go. Either the poor countries don't develop or we somehow transfer the economic resources from away from the countries that are currently rich. Non-development is cruel, redistribution is impossible politically and there is also a chance that the recipients go the way of South Africa.

> Do you believe that the economic progress of the last century wasn't worth a 1-2 degrees in temperature rise?

Unfair as it is, the last two degrees were less impactful than the next two will be. In the short term, the positives will still outweigh the costs. But in the long run, it’s not clear—particularly for tropical countries—that the gains will be worth the cost.

It isn't a binary choice between fossil fuel development and no development. There's a third option, where developed countries subsidize sustainable energy for developing countries on the condition they use zero additional fossil fuels.