> the question of whether historic emissions somehow entitle a country to future emissions
As a national of a developed country, I am entitled to make more greenhouse emissions than the poor.
As a national of a highly developed country, I refuse to, or otherwise fail to, make the changes to achieve 'different growth' that I demand of significantly poorer countries seeking to up their living standards, because these changes threaten my quality of life.
A different way of couching it is that it isn't necessary for China and other states to transit though all the life stages other economies did to get to a better place.
Africa deployed mobile ubiquitously and avoided the costs of ADSL on rural and remote. If they jump to LEO sat based comms and it works there is no 'broadband disaster' inherent in not having fiber in the ground. (Not saying it's perfect)
China leads the world on solar and wind and nuclear. The proposition they're held back by paying for US coal CO2 burdens is ludicrous.
I would say this line of reasoning is an attempt to prop up FF exports
It's not the cheapest form of power guys.
If they buy coal, and India buys coal we can question why rationally. There can be good reasons in the short term.
As a national of a developed country, I am entitled to make more greenhouse emissions than the poor.
As a national of a highly developed country, I refuse to, or otherwise fail to, make the changes to achieve 'different growth' that I demand of significantly poorer countries seeking to up their living standards, because these changes threaten my quality of life.