What really happens is that people and nations who can afford the luxury impose the environmental costs of their activities onto other countries. I've already sent links that showed that the entire growth in Chinese emissions can be attributable to the production of goods destined for western countries.
The mining of minerals, which imposes almost unimaginable environmental costs, benefits the west, not the developing countries that deal with it. We dump our industrial waste on the third world too.
Now you're right. Emissions standards even for local activities can be lower in places like Fiji. But even if we ignore the fact that a lot of the emissions from Fiji are attributable to production for export that benefits us, when you look at emissions per capita, the USA comes out 7th in the world with 24.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, Canada 9th with 22.2 tonnes and Fiji 110th with 3.1. If you include emissions attributable to land-use changes, USA comes in at 14th with 22.9 tonnes, Canada 12th with 24.3 and Fiji 126th with 3.1. We are responsible for about 8 times the emissions of Fijians, and that's not including the goods they provide on our behalf. It's also not taking into account the emissions attributable to tourists in Fiji, who undoubtedly pollute more than the Fijians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Income is one of the best indicators of carbon emissions. If the developing world were suddenly given our income, meeting climate change goals would become far more challenging.
I do not want to destroy the economy. I very much want to make the transition smooth, orderly and beneficial for all. But I have no doubt that you're wrong here. If we did destroy the economy, emissions would drop. Just look at Russia. Appalling environmental standards, but the crashing economy magically brought down emissions.
