Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 8, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 33

Doha climate talks - rich nations compensate poor nations

:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
[link]

"The summit established for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change."

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? Personally I think it's ridiculous. It's generally accepted that you can't punish someone retroactively by passing a law and then punishing them for something they did before the law was passed. Yet that is exactly what the climate meeting sets out to do. Rather than create unity in dealing with problems, it instead creates a new system of confrontation with richer nations being painted as guilty and the rest of the world as innocent. Lastly, just like Kyoto, it is all talk and absolutely no substance at all.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
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)
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012
If only we could get fusion to live up to its potential. So many benefits with so few downsides. It's one of those things that is always 20 years away.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"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?"

I don't.

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.
Reply
:iconmomoe:
momoe Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconmomoe:
momoe Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
That wasn't what I said in my post. It was a bit long-winded so I get the TL;DR thing, so it's all cool (sorry. climate change puns hehe).

I agree that it's hypocritical, but the nuance is that it's hypocrisy designed to correct hypocrisy and pave the way for new and better hypocrisy.

Personally I think it's stupid, but international diplomacy runs on stupidity. One can argue that without stupidity like this, nothing would ever get done.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012
Legalized theft and looting, hidden behind a smokescreen. Nothing more.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
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... :no:

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.
Reply
:iconcoolcat10189:
coolcat10189 Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
I suggest rich countries compensate poor nations for fucking up their customs and way of life for their own gain of cheap material and labor.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
do they even know where the line is between man made and natural climate change really is...

besides have you seen our debt? i doubt Germany and China and the others are doing any better. we can't afford this...
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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?
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
many times it might be less about a dirty diaper than someone actually shitting on the baby.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
Welcome to the light. You earn a gold star.

Climate change has always been about agenda 21 and elites grabbing power.
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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.
Reply
:iconcreamstar:
Creamstar Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconthespiderfrommars:
TheSpiderFromMars Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist 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.
Reply
:iconcreamstar:
Creamstar Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012
Such payment would have to be monitored very carefully, and there's no way you can convince America, of which many people still don't believe in climate change, to lend money to places like China.
Reply
:iconthespiderfrommars:
TheSpiderFromMars Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Then I'll have to FORCE them!!:devil:
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
Just what we need, more welfare.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
I'm not sure that's a good idea.

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.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
"Because you have to identify what nations and what pollutants are causing what damage."

Psssh, no you don't! Obviously pollution is attracted to poverty. That's why poor people always live where it's nasty and rich people don't. Money is like the febreeze for pollution.
Reply
:iconpopaganda77:
popaganda77 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Professional Photographer
You. You, I like.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
hahahahaa!

I would love it, LOVE IT, if a Republican actually said that during a climate change debate.
That would be hysterical and I promise to shit my pants.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
"Obviously pollution is attracted to poverty."

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.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
I was being sarcastic.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
pleased to hear that :) I couldn't hear the tone in your voice.
Reply
:iconpopaganda77:
popaganda77 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Professional Photographer
You're a fucking illiterate retard
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
gee, what got jammed in your arse and won't come out?
Reply
Add a Comment: