So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact?

It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.

> they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China

since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?

It will tank their economies, which is why we’re paying them, basically,

what will happen is that we'll pay them and they will simply sell their labour to whoever else will buy it and still burn up the same resources/cause pollution/realease co2. It's like when we pay poachers not to kill elephants - they take the money and still sell the tusks.

The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst.

Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.

...by what theory of justice is CO2 per land area just? You didn't will your birthplace.

I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.

By the justice of keeping the planet from going above what its natural resources can replenish. Which, is actually the all excuse being given to take money from some people to give to other: saving the planet.

Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.

I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.

This sounds like someone standing on a sinking ship asking why everyone onboard needs to be given their share of available tools to help plug the leaks, when those tools could be used to create surplus for those having tools.