While being a bad idea on the PR side of things... They are doing this so to try and force the righties to accept climate change as factual (which it is) and that we MUST change our ways with the production of polution. (individualized travel. pricing housing in cities beyond what the wage can pay. other)
The problem is an equal restriction on climate policies would heavily disadvantage nations who do not have alternative energy sources. You have countries like India and China that are consuming huge chunks of coal to keep furnaces going for all their people (two most populated countries on the face of the Earth) and only recently China's energy consumption outweighed the State's because of the manufacturing boom and if we do it per population the States actually consume more per person. Compared to the States, China seems to be having a gas shortage taking in it's GDP and population and parts of India are still not on the grid. There are investments being made into wind, hydro, and solar out there, but not to the same degree as there are in say Germany or the States. Yet they have these huge deposits of coal, what else are they gonna burn? Never mind Somalia or Sierra Lione, China and India are livable places in western standards and they have problems.
So basically the problem is, we're having a our water is getting shitty crisis, everyone else is having a keep everyone warm crisis. If anything would help is to convince engineers and investors that selling alternative energy sources to energy starved nations would be a good idea.
The problem with this is that there's no real metric for establishing who's to blame and who should pay, so this will become a laywer's playground and benefit nobody else. Given the total failure of climate protocols, and the paranoia in regards to nuclear power, I expect that within fifty years some nation will decide to solve the problem on its own and start some geo-engineering project to save itself. This will, of course, cause a war.
"So how do people feel about the concept of richer nations compensating poorer ones for damages due to the argument that rich nations have polluted more throughout history and have the ability to compensate?"
ALong with many anti-pollution protocols have allowed for exemptions for developing nations.
ALl this has done is export western problems elsewhere while killing western jobs.
Perhaps it's less about reparation and more like a show of good faith.
As you said, it would take a unified effort to tackle this problem. That means to eventually include all developing nations in any restrictions to emissions/ pollution/ etc.
An argument can be made that developed nations have already had a chance to become wealthy by exploiting the environment. With that in mind, it might not be reasonable to ask developing nations to miss out on their chance to do the same without some offering some kind of compensation. This at least buys some diplomatic capital to get more developing countries involved reducing their emission/ pollution levels. It also creates a moral high ground from which to sanction delinquent nations.
Of course, I live in a developing nation myself (a storm-ravaged island-nation, no less) so my opinion may be biased. Please take it with a grain of salt.
Developing nations claim rising emitions will hamr them, hence wanting compensation. Why would they want compensation for rising emissions so that they can use that compensation to then add to the thing they claim is the problem in the first place? It's hypocrisy.
I have to agree. I think nations that are in real danger should get support (it will benefit richer nations in the long run if the world doesn't get destabilised by mass migrations) but assigning guilt for this seems unjust.
It's a good idea on paper - the whole 'you didn't build that' concept - the lesser nations are suffering at the expense of the larger ones and the larger ones don't want to pay anything back to the lands they exploit. If only they would have done this during the colonial era to compensate the nations the global powers raped and plundered...
Still, it would make more sense to actually address the climate change issues (rather than leave the issues unresolved and just compensate the lesser nations for the damages). But addressing the problems rather than the symptoms is a strategy too rational for politicians to accept.
I'm not sure it's about the "line" so much as who pushed what over the line. Identifying pollutants is one thing, laying blame on a specific nation or a group of nations is going to be impossible in a mature way.
This is baisically doctrine taken right out of the U.N.'s agenda 21. The "rich" countries (like the U.S.? Anyone who has not been living under a rock for the past half decade should know this country can not afford itself, let alone a smattering of other countries across the globe everytime an earthquake or tsunami takes them out.) are responsible for taking care of all the poor countries until they big enough to to change their own dirty diaper. This just sounds like a watered down version of colonialism to me, with the U.N. as the new emperor?
welcome? lol ive been here for a while lol. of course if we say anything people just asking where our tin foil hats are and call us idiots. oh well i guess when we get to say "i told you so" it will be funny.
It is true that Western, industrialized nations such as the US have caused climate change, which thus has caused many problems for lesser developed countries. As such, the reasoning isn't so bad. The problem is that these developing countries also need to change their fuel consumption and CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change. Paying them like this would fail to encourage them.
TheSpiderFromMarsFeatured By OwnerDec 11, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's true that they need to cut their pollution as well, but since they're less wealthy, they WILL need some help from more wealthier countries. I'm more than willing to help out myself, since I live in one of those wealthier countries. I just hope our government share the same opinion as I do.
The problem is, the wealthy, industrialized countries are the ones doing the brunt of the damage to the ecosystem, and poorer countries suffer disproportionately because of it; it's nothing more than hubris to think 'everyone must share the blame.' Further, wealthier countries are much more capable of maintaining pollution and implementing programs to reduce their (and often only their) environmental footprint, and in withstanding the effects of environmental disasters, while poorer ones often have to rely on cheap, inefficient methods just to sustain themselves. Saying these powerful countries shouldn't be charged with the responsibility of the situation just because nobody knew the true extent of their actions at the time isn't going to save the world from those actions, it's just going to further aggravate the disparity between wealthy and poor once the situation is no longer ignorable.
Because you have to identify what nations and what pollutants are causing what damage.
For instance, China's pollution drifts across the Pacific into North America. North America's pollution drifts across the Atlantic......
Until there is a global agreement to dramatically reduce reliance on fossil fuels (and increase the use of whatever clean/green/renewable source replaces it) nothing is going to work.
You still have to convince a huge portion of the USA's government that man induced climate change and all it's ample evidence is indeed a real thing. But that requires convincing people that think evolution is from hell, the planet is 6,000 years old, gays are sinners, and women have no reproductive rights that science is not a religion or a competing religion with their faith.
Critical thinking is the enemy to many people and some of them have political power. That's more of a problem then pollution production.
You don't really believe that do you? If so, you obviously live in some rich country where you can afford to have someone else deal with the environmental outcomes from the detritus of your luxurious lifestyle.