Thank you for the response and sorry if my comment was excessively snarky. I think we share the same concerns and have the same goals and even mostly agree on practical steps to get there. I've just seen and heard too many degrowth advocates (that really want to return to 19th century economy with 21st century populations) recently and it's really worrying me.

> and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves.

Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do.

> The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels

The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital.

> It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.

I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.