Getting billions of people to work together cooperatively to do something was always a complete pipe dream. It’s the fantasy that, this time central planning will work, because this thing is so important. We should have been throwing money at carbon capture technologies decades ago.
So Bangladesh will not reduce emissions until it hits developed world status. Not one bit. Can trees absorb all of Bangladesh’s growing emissions over the next 50 years? Same for India, Nigeria, etc?
It's mostly the trees that we cut down. They were already there. Part of the problem here is that biomass was declared to be 'carbon neutral', which caused a lot of people to interpret that as a license to cut down the forests and burn them. But carbon fixation is a slow process and growing trees to the point where they have a substantial gas exchange gowing takes a long time.
Bangladesh has been handling flooding covering > 50% of its land for as long as it’s existed. That’s the nature of being a country built on a river delta. That doesn’t mean the country is going to cease to exist. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level, but even 19th century technology is enough to keep the sea out.
Bangladesh could lose a third of its per capita GDP by 2060 due to climate change: https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/bangladesh-lose-3649-gdp-cap.... But that’s compared to a no climate change baseline. It will still be far richer than it is today. And it’s in no danger of ceasing to exist. That’s not a scientifically supportable claim.
Here's a fun challenge: Go to google earth and zoom straight in on the US. Try 10 random spots. How many spots had somewhere that trees could be placed, without tearing up crops?
