Actually, that is not so. The “other 92%” –assuming that this means the bulk of humanity that subsists on 3.00 or less per day–do not partake of the technology and products that the top 8% produce–how could they afford it?

But even if we knock off 10% or more of that (82%) to account for the rapidly developing nations that are craving Western style living standards (a worrisome trend), they are not necessarily there yet (i.e., at our level of consumption)…the remainder are still stuck in poverty and subsistence living …it will be a long time before they catch up to us even half way.

But you do bring into relief a great myth: that what we produce benefits everyone else. In fact, most of what we produce here gets consumed here (or by our European Allies. Some goes to China and Russia, little, proportionately, to the majority of poorer nations.

Further, your statement: “nothing to buy” is astounding! You forget that most of the people in these countries produce their own food, clothing and energy (harvesting local sources of coal and firewood) and could certainly invest in local economic engines (manufacturing, etc.)….and, just maybe there are better things to do with money than buy more things from us that aren’t needed.

Even further, reducing our emissions does not in any way equate with having fewer exports (for poorer nations to buy), or, that the things worth buying (by poorer, foreign citizens) are those produced through polluting means. Your argument is fallacious on numerous levels. Responsible consumer habits here have generated an entire industry around green and sustainable products. These poorer folks could buy these latter products, services, and, if needed, energy sources, thus increasing the demand and market for green products.

I would do a bit more study on global economics, trade and productivity…it will be an eye-opening experience.