This is also why democracies with a highly educated populace also have the lowest environmental footprint.Start by screwing democracy.
Environmental movements begin when people notice they keep getting sick and their tap water tastes funny. If they don't have a chance to act on this, and the people who make decisions on industrial policy don't know or care what's going on, there's no limit to how messed up things can get. See the former Soviet Union for examples.
To be fair, just up the Industrial Revolution by, say 20 years, and you add 20 years of awful environmental management and more devastation. Basically the more you add, the worse it gets. It is a zero sum game.
And of course, capitalist economic development would be all environmentally friendly.
Rly.
And of course, capitalist economic development would be all environmentally friendly.
Rly.
The course introduces students to key environmental disasters in Russia, Ukraine, and Central Asia during the Soviet period, 1917-1991. The disappearance of the Aral Sea, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the Virgin Lands campaign receive particular attention and emphasis. In addition to these key events, readings also investigate the idiosyncratic ways in which the Soviet authorities approached science, the environment, and demography."
To make our planet have an even more screwed-over environment, you'd have to break the global north's monopoly on advanced manufacturing much earlier than OTL. Essentially, have what's going on in China and India these days begin a lot earlier than the 1980s.
The Soviets were all about scientific value-maximising, and worshiped American giants in the field, like Mr.Ford for example. Except they were mostly implementing the same ideas 20 years later, 10 times more enthusiastically, hence the results.
But generally, to screw the environment over some more, all you need is more population and higher per capita consumptions. So the less wars, revolutions, etc. we have, the faster the Aral dries out, Mekong glows in the dark, and so on. The peace dividend when applied widely enough could well kill the planet by 1960.
Also, just because the First World offloads its immediate environmental impact to third-world recipients, doesn't mean there's no impact. Just that it's been exported.