I understand the fact that the developed countries don't really have a right to tell the developing countries that they have to cut emissions and therefor curb their economic growth.
Labor and environment are two key issues that many developed countries use to engage in competitive, zero-sum behavior based on outdated 18th century mercantilism.
But just because I understand it, doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
Well, then you seem not to understand it.
For one it is short-sighted. Pollution isn't border/boundary specific so in effect it is all of us who should be dealing with it, developing or not. Developing also doesn't have to follow the same boring path, if only other countries could reject the western model of growth and demand. Develop something new, be brave new pioneers. A big ask.
The pollution is already there. The development is not always there. Why is London far cleaner now than at any time in say 500 years? Which is dirtier, an Indian village with dung-fired stoves, latrine-flooded water sources or Mumbai despite its factories, traffic and millions?
As for the alarmists... I really am not sue who they are? Being concerned about the environment is a good thing. No? If predictions are wrong (in the positive sense) then great. No harm is being done. What about the cost? A small fraction of national budgets really. Compared to defence budgets the cost is laughable. Would rather throw some money at a potential problem than none at all and sink. Plenty of money is wasted on the defence budget, from too many boots to malfunctioning vehicles...
Back to that so desperately needed understanding that, again, you seem not to have achieved. Complying with environmental regulations costs billions if not trillions every year. This is a major brake on economic growth. What does it deliver? Some of the legislation and regulations are obviously good and were implemented for very good reasons but...
Look at what the EPA regulated in the 1970s and look at what it regulates today. The costs are ever greater for deliverables that are ever smaller. Minute fractions of percentages for air and water cleanliness. Hell, the water in most American cities is far cleaner than in some pristine natural lake where fish and birds shit. But nature is the goddess that all must kneel before. Everything must remain "pure."
IF alarmists really cared about the environment and global warming, they would realize the best way to fight it is to increase development to make the world wealthier. We have seen this over and over and over again. What we have also seen over and over and over again is economic redistibution schemes that take from the productive and give to the undeserving because of issues of fairness that lead to no discernible benefit whatsoever other than to assuage the sensibilities of leftist claptrap theorists and their sense of honor, integrity or JUSTICE.
How taking a couple of billion or even a couple of hundred billion dollars from a Western developed country to set up projects or fund NGOs or give money to the national governments of African or Pacific Island or Caribbean nations makes sense or even leads to any discernible benefit for the environment escapes me. Here, I clearly lack understanding so if someone can explain to me how these redistributionist schemes which so clearly are modeled on Communist, socialist, Third Worldist paradigms is of any benefit whatsoever I would be most appreciative.
It is like the UN budget. Take any objective, factor in all the money that is devoted to a UN bureaucracy and look for a measurable outcome that is not consumed by bullshit phrases about raising awareness or establishing a presence on the ground or empowering x y or z group to achieve a b or c outcomes and then scratch your head and wonder... why waste this money at all, just to feel good? to give worthless Third World and women's, gender, Latino American, African American studies majors jobs? Deconstructionism needs to be implemented but let's start with the specious precious cant-ridden premises of those who have never worked in a profit-driven organization a day in their life... I am not counting their summer jobs at McDonald's or cashiering at some gas station... they would not know how to achieve anything of value if they tried... and obviously they have never done so... do their theses on their subjective sensibilities regarding Shakespeare and his views on women? minorities? colonialism? capitalism? anomie? religion? oppression? power domination? really matter if Shakespeare, himself, never intended any of the motives or definitions or descriptions that they mistakenly subscribe to him just because they FEEL that such is the case?
Likewise, do their irrelevant, wrong-headed, distorted perceptions of corporations and capitalism really matter? should they be allowed to create the regulatory regimen that governs the actions of the most productive? should they be allowed to set the policies that govern distribution of resources, economic, education or otherwise?
And this is they KEY problem with the whole Rio fiasco. Everyone wants their free trips to the beach but they have to pretend to engage in agoniste writhings about their carbon footprints while deluding themselves that their presence "matters" enough to make the CO2 emissions created "worth it." If only these people would subject themselves to the same regulatory regimens that they are demanding of business... What's fair is fair after all and we should all be granted justice...
how's that for a hook... come on bite... bite... bite... 
