Countries like Denmark and Norway are a lot more detrimental to the planet's ecosystem because they consume a lot, lot more per capita compared to what Bangladesh does (and they consume lots of bad things that Bangladeshi people do not consume).
Cambodia (for example) has a terrible rubbish problem. They burn their trash, and vast amounts of it get thrown in the Mekong river and washed out to sea. There's also a big problem with unlicensed forest logging, and all sorts of environmental concerns. This is, primarily, because poor people are too busy with immediate survival concerns to worry about their environment.
Norway (for example) has a higher per-person consumption of resources, but also looks after its countryside and environment.
What's the relative damage being done to the global environment? Is there an argument that raising people out of poverty will actually reduce their impact on the environment even though it increases their resource consumption?
Though it has been shown that some countries are beginning to reduce emissions while increasing GDP. Much of that shift could be explained by a global shift to renewables as they become the cheapest form of power, but this is a tide that lifts all boats, and the correlation remains.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
The biggest carbon sink is the ocean, so doing things that damage the ocean (like dumping trash into a river) are more of a concern.
There's also other environmental concerns than CO2 and climate change. Damaging jungle and ocean ecosystems creates other effects that we need to be concerned about (not least biodiversity losses from loss of habitat and population).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
This is not true. That was true in 1950, started to drop in 1970. Now it is 2.04 kid per woman. And when you compare contemporary consumption of Danes, you have to compare it with contemporary consumption of Bangladeshis.
Currently, the fertility rates are 1.73 vs 2.04 kid per woman. Which is much smaller difference.
So then, would 1 billion Norweigans be better or worse than our current situation?
