Why would this necessarily be a benefit? This same argument could have been made at any time in history. For millennia humanity has benefited from converting resources from one form to another. What has changed?
Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?
Well for a start, if poor nations become rich, they may not want to continue working for a pittance to satisfy the richer nations whims. Prices may go up pretty fast.
Also, if the poorer nations are using all the coal+oil, there's going to be less for the rich nations... again, making prices rise.
Nothing has changed, and yes the same argument holds true regardless of climate change. Being carbon neutral means that resources are being used at the same rate they are being created, ergo, sustainability.
Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?
Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?