With Copenhagen last week, Ms Aucoin thought it could be very interesting for students to share what they think about the idea of wealthier countries taking more responsibility for climate change than the developing countries. Please read this article:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/un-environment-chief-calls-on-china-us-to-raise-offers/
Here are some questions to keep in mind while reading:
1. Why have developing countries argued that wealthier, industrialized nations should sacrifice more to fight climate change? Do you agree?
2. China is now the world's largest polluter, surpassing the United States. Should she continue to claim status as a developing country?
3. To what extent have business interests hindered progress?
It's possible the Martinican students will be too busy with their final exams to add their ideas to the exchange. Nevertheless, I wanted to add this piece to discussions on climate change:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=120498442&m=121353021
If projections are correct is seems as if Florida will be greatly affected by global warming. What about the small island of Martinique? Are you worried? What should we do to protect land surrounded by the sea? Listening to the specifics of what will happen to Florida made me shudder to think about Martinique. However, on a more positive note I listened to Edouard Glissant at the Prix Carbet awards ceremony. He says that small political entities will have a greater ability to confront moments of crisis because they can tap into indigenous sources of knowledge. Is that a viable idea? Can the Martinican students explain this resevoir of talent and knowledge that Glissant was referring to?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The main support behind the argument that wealthier countries are the main cause of climate change is because of big business manufacturing industries. In countries such as the United States, China and India, factories run rampant across those countries. This causes massive amounts of air pollution (smog, carbon monoxide, etc.) as well as land pollution that greatly affects our environment causing problems such as climate change.
ReplyDeleteRecently, China has just surpassed the United States as the worlds largest polluter. I feel that China is a well developed and advanced country. China has a massive output in exports and is currently one of the most powerful countries on earth. With that the Chinese government must identify that the actions that they take do affect the world and if they (as well as many other countries) don't cut back then there will be serious issues.
Developing countries have put the blame and responsibility of the climate change situation on developed countries primarily because wealthier, industrialized nations are the chief causes of this problem. I am on the side of the developing countries because larger countries should be held accountable for the problems that they create. If we were to eliminate the carbon emissions of developing countries altogether, we would still have this climate change problem. Developed countries should attempt to fix the problems because if they remain complacent, the climate crisis will only be exacerbated. The efforts of developing countries will have a minimal effect.
ReplyDeleteThere is however, an exception to this argument. China, a developing country, is the chief culprit in the climate crisis. Yet, China attempts to shift blame on the United States saying that the U.S. should start changing because it is developed; China should not sacrifice anything and should continue to develop. China’s argument is illogical and very selfish. The world cannot survive if China was to develop to the level of the United States. The pollution from China would devastate the world; the pollution from China is already devastating the world. If China were to develop fully, the harmful effects that China, as the world’s largest polluter, has on the environment will be amplified to such a degree that the environment will be worse than it was before the Copenhagen conference. China is vital to the success of Copenhagen.
Besides the unwillingness of large polluters, another obstacle that stands in the way of Copenhagen success is business interests that hinder progress. This problems stems from the fact that it is economically inconvenient for businesses to make efforts that would alleviate environmental problems. It is better for businesses to manufacture things rampantly than to be careful about the emissions that they make. Money is the root of all evil, and in this case, businesses are largely to blame for the lack of progress that the climate change movement has made.
RChoi Pd 2
first of all, i would just like to say that Obama has taken the first step to making a change. i'm actually glad that he has decided to go to the copenhagen summit because it might allow for a new treaty to be installed to fix the environment and the global problem we have today.
ReplyDeletei think that developed countries should sacrifice more to combatting global change because although they are not the ones that emits the most harmful gases, they are still more powerful than the developing countries. countries like us have much more money to spend to fix this climate problem than do countries like china and india. since we are powerful and rich, we should be the bigger man and help them because we are like a figure to them. they look up to us for help and we should help them.
for me, a developing country means that it is not powerful in its global market, economoy, and government. to me, china is still considered a developing country because although they are the largest polluters, they dont have as much money to help resolve this.
business want incentive to stop global warming btu that takes a lot of money if all companies want that. the summit committee will need to figure out a way to persuade cmpanies to join forces and stop global warming without so much awards. that is the problems
DEREK Y.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, the effects of climate change and global warming are well known, but to what extent are the nations of the world trying to stop it? It is questionable. Wealthier nations are asked to contribute more to fight climate change as opposed to nations in poverty. I believe this is fair because chances are that wealthier nations are rich by their large amount of manufacturing and production. This causes a lot of damage to the atmosphere. Therefore, the wealthier nations should cut down more. Also, by being wealthy, these nations can afford to cut their profit margins a small amount to save the planet. It would not be fair to ask a poor country because they do not produce much in the first place. Also, they need to produce more to eventually become a wealthy nation, which will later contribute to the fight against climate change.
China, being the world’s largest producer, should no longer be able to claim the status of “developing nation.” Obviously if they produce the most pollution, they are in a state where they know longer need to grow larger. No one is trying to stop their development, but maybe develop in a way that will cut down on pollution.
Business has hindered progress of the fight against climate change, because many nations are too concerned for their large businesses to tell them to cut down on their emissions. They worry that they will lose the support of these companies, or that the nation will crumble internally because of the cut on production of goods. However, I agree that this question is controversial, and that it is not easy to put limits on business’.
1. Developing countries argue this because wealthy nations that are already developed will not be severely affected by a change in energy policy or an emissions limit. However, for developing countries, abiding by such changes could stunt their development and more severely hurt their economies. Its fair to ask wealthier nations to take the lead because they are better able to do so. It would be much easier for the US to lead in better energy policies and since the US are China are the greatest emitters, they bear more responsibility to do this.
ReplyDelete2) China shouldn't try to make the claim that they are a development country to avoid responsibility in environmental action. China has a large economy that is growing wealthier by the second. Since they won't be hurt as bad and also because they emit more than any other country in the world, they have more responsibility than some other developing nations. Environmental dangers are also taking a greater toll there, so they should be obliged to take action.
3) I would say businesses are one of the biggest hindrances to the effort. They will bitterly oppose any legislation like this as they have for all others. Businesses are only out for their own interest and will try to strike down anything that will get in the way of their money. For example, the food industry fought trans fat labels, and the auto industry fought the seat belt laws. We will have to get tough on the big businesses if we want an effective climate change effort. We will all have to make some sacrifices for this to work, but the payoff will be great.
Pointing fingers like little children seems the most absurd thing to do in a grave situation like the current one.
ReplyDeleteThe "developing" countries want an excuse to continue doing nothing about their immense emmisions, while the Earth comes ever nearer to irreversible changes it has not seen in the history of mankind. They want to be let alone, while they pollute more and more as they "develop" and get ahead of their "developed" rivals (for example look at China, whose economy is now rivaling that of the US, and yet they claim to be "developing"), because the latter are forced to deal with the problem caused equally by both developed and "developing" countries by limiting their emmisions and cutting down on their own pollution.
Obviously some very poor countries, such as some African states, are not very responsible for the environmental problems because they do not emit much at all (per capita). Hence they should not have to reduce their emmisions and pollution much, if at all. However, other countries that tend to be called "developing" such as India and China, are a major cause of pollution. Their technology is far less efficient then the U.S., and yet they have more factories and manufacturing plants, resulting in about equal (or in the case of China, MORE) emmisions. I do not see how they can use their slow development and lack of decent technology as an excuse to continue doing what they are, while the U.S. and other developed countries have to limit their, no larger, emmisions.
This finger pointing has no place with the current state of things. Developed countries are being reprimanded for having a healthier infrastructure, having developed better technologies, and an efficient government, by countries unable to match them. If we do not want to see irreversible changes to our only habitat, the Earth, all the countries must cooperate and those that do not must be punished harshly and unapologetically, whether it be a rich developed country or a third world one. This is not the time for pointing fingers.
Stan O.
Period 2
For some reason, Copenhagen just sounds like a greedy charity right now. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for sustainability and slowing down global warming, but Steiner makes it sound like they're desperate for money, and will do anything to get it.
ReplyDelete100 billion euros sounds like way too much. This is significantly more than what the UN spends per year ($30 billion - http://www.globalpolicy.org/un-finance.html). The amount of money they want really does seem unreasonable, but they probably really do need a lot (maybe not 100 bil euros); preventative measures that could have slowed down climate change would have been cheaper than the costs right now, but our capitalist nation was too narrow-minded to see this.
Developing nations want developed nations to pick up more of the tab in the treaty, because they simply can't afford to spend any of their money. How can a country that can barely feed its people try to spend its money to help the rest of the world? However, like the United Nations member dues, member nations should allocate however much money they are able to. Developed nations also are the ones responsible for much of the degradation of the environment, and thus should pay more.
However, much of the world is incorrectly categorized as "developing," when they're fairly developed. China is a great example of this--they have an emerging economy, lots of resources and power, but much of the country is still rural and dependent on agriculture for income. I've seen urban Shanghai and Beijing over the years, and the emergence of China as an industrial power, but it still hasn't truly grown enough to be considered a "developed nation." Pollution shouldn't be a factor in determining a country's status, because some large, developed countries can sometimes pollute as much as a developing country does.
Businesses both slow down and speed up progress. If it weren't for business, there would not be as great of a demand for new technologies, but they are why we're currently stuck in this mess of climate change. Business interest has obviously influenced progress in passing laws and treaties to slow down global warming/climate change, but clearly has not hindered its progress because even today, the president of one of the most business-controlled, capitalist nations, President Obama, is willing to attend Copenhagen to solve the dilemma of climate change.
Less developed countries have argued that the more wealthy nations should sacrifice the most for climate change because the more countries already have the capability to do so. Referencing the amount of support that the developed nations can offer to the Coppenhagen cause, Achim Steiner states that these nations are not at the ceiling over the amount of support they can administer, but rather at the "floor of what they can offer". I also hold this view; poorer countries will need the time to develop their economies, and governmental systems before they will be able to front large sums of money to this drive. If the big eight economies of the world do not agree to front the cost of planet-saving measures, the summit will surely fail.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that China should not be considered a "developed" country as of yet. Although China has surpassed the emissions of the U.S., one must consider the fact that China's population is more than four times as large as that of the U.S. (U.S. pop.-304,059,724; China pop. 1,325,639,982) The argument that because China is the world's leading polluter it must be held more accountable is flawed because the emissions figures put out by the U.S. is still comparable to those of China, even with four times as less people.
3. I believe that the only thing hindering climatic progess is the fact that business, especially the auto, and fuel industries, would be severely damaged by a major piece of climate legislation. It's a two-edged sword for us: we can protect the planet and harm our economies (we've already seen what can happen when the auto industry takes a big hit i.e. General Motors) or we can keep our economies in check and ignore our ailing planet.
-Amadin
1. Developing countries think that wealthier countries should sacrifice more for climate change because they contribute the most to the deterioration of the climate because these countries have more factories releasing harmful gases to the atmosphere. I agree that the wealthier countries should sacrifice more because they have more money to spend and because they caused a lot of climate change but this does not mean that developing countries shouldn't do anything to help the environment. They are also contributing to climate change.
ReplyDelete2. China shouldn't be considered a developing country anymore since it is the largest polluter in the world. It has been developing for a long time and now it is one of the mot powerful countries in the world.
3. Countries that do not want to sacrifice for climate change are those that want their businesses to continue producing goods even though it is hurting the environment. Each country is trying to make money and because of the race between them, they neglect the environment.
-nparacha pd2
Success at Cophenhagen falls primarily on the US and China at this point. They are the major contributors to green house gases at this point and the two countries least likely to compromise on reducing emissions. The responsibility to stop climate change falls on everyone, industrialized nations and developing countries, as we all live on this earth. Both scenarios have their advantages when it comes to reducing emissions. Industrialized nations have the money to reduce emissions, which developing nations do not have. Developing nations do not have too much outdated infrastructure to replace unlike industrialized nations that went through their industrial revolution in the early 1900s.
ReplyDelete1. I think developing countries should contribute more to the global efforts to minimize the destructive force of climate change, since it really is the developed countries that are producing the majority of the pollution. However i believe India and China, while they are developing countries, they shouldn't be held to the same standards as other developing countries since they have so many citizens. India and China should take a stronger initiative, as a developed country would.
ReplyDelete2. While China is a developing country, it is still one of the most populated country in the world. Therefore they should be held to higher pollution standards then developed. countries.
3. While powerful lobbyists might hinder the progress of a more efficient and less polluted future, it is ultimately up to the industry to configure innovative green technology for popular use. For example, the car industry is continually creating more efficient and less polluting vehicles.
Je sais que les pays industrialises sont ces qui polluent le plus. Les usines, voitures, etc combinent pour ajouter des emissions de carbon en l'atmosphere. C'est ce qui cree l'effet de serre. Mais aussi, il y a des autres choses qui sont plus negatives et ajoutent plus de gaz en l'atmosphere. Par exemple, les pays industrialises peuvent se premettre des nourriture comme la viande. Quand les usines preparent la viande, une grande quantite de carbon dioxide se degage, donc il y aura le rechauffment de la terre.
ReplyDeleteA "Chaos", tu dis que tu deteste quand des pays certains accusent des autres pays. Alors, POURQUOI FAIS-TU LE MEME? C'est atroce! Tu discutes que la Chine et l'Inde ont la technologie inefficace, mais, que suggestes-tu que se pays doivent faire? Tu n'es pas plus meilleur que les pays comme les Etats-Unis qui blame les pays en voie de développement.
A "2kkhna," qu'as-tu dit? Tu fais que je crois que toutes les enterprises sont diaboliques et egoistes. Et IKEA? Que penses-tu a cette enterprise qui se sient concerne de l'environnment?
It has been the argument of many developing countries, that larger, wealthier, more industralized countries should take on the role of fighting climate and sacrifice more in the process. There argument is that these countries since they are more developed can actually afford to sacrifice more, in comparison to still developing countries who depend on the things that they have, and will not ever be able to develop more if they sacrifice anything great. Although I understand the point that these countries are trying to make I disagree with their assumptions. If climate change is an issue of international concern, then everyone should take the issue in consideration and decide how the situation will be eradictated. Plus, if we allowed developing countries to hold onto this argument and continue to use things that contribute to pollution and climate change when the rest of the world has stopped using it, then in the future its just going to end up with these countries being dependent on the things that the rest of the world is trying to move away from, and this would just leave them future behind and always playing catch-up to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteChina is a big controversial topic in this whole issue. With China still claiming to be a developing country, then it could turn out that China is not required to sacrifice anything in this world shift away from causing climate change in order to protect the enviroment. As of now, China is the biggest polluter in the world, surpassing even the United States. For a country to be causing this much pollution, they must be developed. China claim to being underdeveloped is illogical and like every other country it should be held responsible for its actions in causing pollution and climate change.
Without the full cooperation of countries, the progress of this great change can be greatly hindered. The reason why some countries is not completely onboard with this vision is because they are thinking about their businesses. Businesses are industries which make their money off of productivity a and such. Changing the way that countries operate, affects businesses in huge ways and some businesses dont like this fact. Countries are going to stand behind their businesses in most cases because this is their economy we're talking about and they do not want to mess up their money.
The only way this campaign against climate change is going to work, is if the various countries and businesses all come to an argeement about how they are going to go about saving the world, so that not so many drastic changes occur that make it impossible for countries to operate and thrive while saving the world.
Steiner dit que l'Amerique et la Chine devraient aider le plus. Aussi, il a suggere que l'Europe devrait donner (100 billion) Euros seulement pour aider les pays pauvres qui ne peuvent pas aider l'environement sans notre aide.
ReplyDeleteNow, back to English. I agree with Elaine that 100 billion Euros is just ridiculous, and as liberal as Europeans might be, I doubt they would consent to spending that much money on climate change.
I do agree that the US and China, as top polluters in the world, should take on the most aggressive role in preventing climate change. The excuse that China is still a developing nation and is therefore immune to all this is outrageous. The US is actually in debt to China and with a vastly and rapidly accelerating (and polluting) industrial setting, China cannot excuse itself from acting responsibly.
Unfortunately, I don't think Copehagen will be what many environmentalists were hoping. Today, Algore claimed that a scientist asserted that the North Pole would entirely mely in the summer in 5-6 years. A short while later, the scientist himself pointed out that he never expressed such a thing.
My point of view- if you didn't say it, you don't have to go out of your way to tell the media that you didn't, especially during Copehagen. I mean, the point is that the Poles will eventually melt; we don't have time to argue about how long it will take. I was dissapointed; the last thing we need is for Algore to be embarassed and to be proven against science.
What can you do?
--Manjinder
Clearly there is an issue with reducing carbon emissions. As many of you have said, the developing and developed nations are taking turns telling each other to do more while getting nothing done. The problem with these arguments is that we all have to participate. While it is true that developed nations have the luxury of time and money to combat climate change whereas some "developing" countries do not, it is not to say that the "developing" nations can not combat climate change. Looking at the development of nations throughout the years in relation to their economic status and carbon emissions it is clear that there is a deadly relationship: as economic ability increases so does carbon emissions. We can see that that economic growth has always come at the cost of the environmental health, and thus we now know better. Developed nations can and must help those still "developing" skip that stage of increasing carbon emissions. They do not need the vestiges of the idustrial revolution plauging their nation. They need modern technological advancedments that can make the transition into a developed nation less harmful. But it is not compltely up to the developed nations to supply the necessary goods to start a cleaner industrial revolution. Those aiming to develop must also take part becuase by simply having the means does not necessitate a result; it requires will. Thus China and India are great examples. With China beating us in the race to emit carbon there's obciously something wrong. Just because they are a developing nation does not mean they have no obligations to cut emissions. On that note the whole concept of developed and developing nations is ridiculous. Between these two extremes are a multitude of different situations. It's the equivalent of saying there are two types of people: good and bad. Unfortunately this is an ideal situation which would most likely not occur. With business interests carrying a significant amount of weight, drastic cuts in carbon emissions are not possible for they make it harder to "do business." Hopefully at Copenhagen, there is some middle ground reached and there will be some change. I'd rather not think that we are still scrambling for worldwide effort when the problem has become so widely accepted and identified as a threat to the human race.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the wealthier nations should sacrifice more to fight climate change because they don’t have to constantly worry about the problems of poor nations, which involve food shortages or poverty. These wealthier are the main culprits of the environmental problem due to their industrial revolution and should take responsibilities and aid the poor nations to avoid their previous problems.
ReplyDeleteChina will claim its status as a developing country due to the fact not all of china is out of poverty. I disagree with China’s claim because by saying this, they are using this as an excuse to avoid being labeled a wealth nation that has more responsibilities. They cause the most pollution and should clean their mess up.
Business hindered progress by lobbying the prevention of laws that require expensive fines, prevention or cleanups by the businesses. They try to run their business without worry of the laws that can stop them. If the business lobbyist were stopped then maybe more progress on the cleanup and preventions can be made at the cost of less profit and waste from business.
Kazi
AJ Pd 2
ReplyDeleteI agree that wealthier countries should sacrifice more for climate change because they cause most of the destruction of the climate because they more factories, cars, and other things. Also, the wealthier countries should sacrifice more because they are able to pay for this without destroying their nation’s coffers. This does not mean that developing countries should sit back and watch. They have a responsibility to the Earth as well.
Since it is the largest polluter in the world, China shouldn't be considered a developing country anymore. It is one of the most powerful countries in the world so it should man up!
Countries only care about the amount of money they can make. That is what makes this situation so delicate. No one wants to sacrifice hard earned money to help the Earth. IF they don’t see a problem then there is no problem. This is going to result in a disaster because the window is closing every day.
While I do understand that this topic is very controversial and it may take a while to come to a conclusion, I think it's impossible that countries can't seem to find a way to include environmental-friendly programs to alleviate the effects of global warming. Sure, it's going to take a little more work from them but what's the point of developing your nation if you're depleting your resources?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how China, India, and other developing countries can say that they shouldn't be a part of this summit when in fact; they are emitting just as many greenhouse gases as some of the already developed nations. If they are certainly letting out this many gases, imagine how many they will emit when they finally decide that they are “developed.”
The whole point of this is to reduce the carbon emissions so who cares if a country is developing? If they are indeed developing, then it should be good for them to implement green ideas into their industries now instead of waiting for global warming to take its toll on our environment.
China is still claiming status as a developing country because they are greedy and don’t want to give up any of the money they are receiving from their businesses. If they actually had to implement green strategies, then they would have to use the money they made from their industries and they refuse to do so.
I agree with Richard Choi when he says that these developing countries are money-hungry because they are only thinking about the present instead of thinking about their future as a nation. Sure, they are doing well right now with all of their booming businesses, but if the earth is being drained, what will their nation become in the upcoming years?
The US seems to be the biggest contributor in environmental problems. Yes, China is now the number one polluter, but the US has been polluting the earth for a much longer time. As Stan said, countries, particularly our country, is pointing fingers to avoid blame.
ReplyDeleteCountries such as the US, that are large contributors to pollution and have enough money should be the ones that are primarily responsible for environmental costs. These nations tend to be the ones that were top polluters for a much longer time than countries like China.
Still, developing countries shouldn't be allowed to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide without any consequences. If these countries are exempt from environmental responsibilities completely, the efforts of other nations to control pollution would be in vain.
All nations, developing or not should have to control and pay for high carbon emission, but rich nations like the US should be given more responsibility.
It's been a long lasting controversy over whether developing countries or already industrialized countries is more responsible for the climate change; and it is not likely to go away anytime soon. It is true that developing countries are more vulnerable to economic fallback at this point in the game. Taking responsibility for the climate change would mean major alterations in the way that huge comapnies make their profit. The big companies in developing countries are important for the economic progress of the nation as a whole, so having them cut back and sacrifice such a huge step toward industrialization, to the developing nations, isn't the most reasonable thing. Even though i do see the argument of the industrialized nations, it is unfair to let the wealthy indutrialized nations take most of the responsibilities, when developing countries are producing equal amounts, if not more damange to the environment. Industrialized nations such as the United States should not be punished for faults of others as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though China is now the world's largest polluter, the amount of pollution cannot be a meansurement of indutrial success. Because China has much more people than the United States does, its pollution producing rate per person is relatively lower than that of the United States. The average standard of living in China is still poorer than the United States. A better system of evaluation is needed to determine which countries still fall under the developing country category, and then actions can be taken accordingly.
Developing countries have more to fight than industrialized nations primarily because industrialized nations are already at the top of their game meaning that they can control their production. Developing coutnries have the disadvantage that they are getting to the top thus they will make maximum profit no matter what it costs. This may lead to unsuccesful forms of controlling their production. This can be a bad decision if the devloping country does not have the right leadership because resources may go under and eventually the production will colapse.
ReplyDeleteChina should not be considered a developing country. The country has a population so big that it causes a problem for everyone. At the rate they produce gasses, they should be known as THE industrialized nation. Countries such as China and India are heavily populated and cause more damage then instrialized nations. If these countries cannot control their population, how can they possibly control their production? It's a tough situation.
Business interestes have slowly backtracked progress in that appliances that could be used before aren't available anymore. Cars now use much less gas and can run further. This attracts the consumer and leaves many companies out of business. Another example can be solar powered appliances. Since they use up less energy and cost much less over periods of time, people are attracted to the simplicity as opposed to other appliances.
Acheim Streiner has warned that the US not committing itself as a nation to the Copenhagen conference, could possibly halt any sort of momentum, they have going on. Honestly why shouldn’t the US not play a more prevalent role in trying to preserve our environment, when in fact the US contributes to the very problem that the conference hopes to combat? And while we are on the subject of industrialized nations that contribute the most pollution, China should also look into making an effort, because it seems as if they are barely trying. If a nation has contributed to a problem that affects other nations they should feel its their duty to find solutions to that problem. Yet according the Mr. Streiner, China and India negotiators seem more guarded. Wealthy nations have so much potential to making a difference, yet poorer nations such as Brazil, and Indonesia seem to be making the grand gestures. It makes one wonder why its so very hard for a wealthier nation to contribute. After giving it much thought the wealthier nations may feel as though they have a lot more to lose, for they are made up of big businesses. These corporations have their own agendas and donating some of their profit money to global warming preventative measures apparently is not what they have in mind. If only they would realize that depleting their resources now, would mean they would have no business in the future.
ReplyDeleteA Daniel... Je ne sais pas que vouz avez dit et ceci est le seule chose que je sais dire en francais.
ReplyDeleteAnyways... I agree with Manjinder and Elaine regarding the ridiculous amount of money that is being asked of the countries to put forth in this effort. While Global warming is an issue that we must attend to, 100 billion Euros-- or 200 billion Dollars, is a lot of money.
Also, while China may be a "developing" country, it does have the money to cut down its CO2 emissions. This should not be an excuse, as it is China is a top exporter of goods. Going back to mercantalism, exporting more than importing goods is extremely good for economic growth-- and this holds true in China's case. Its economy is greatly emerging and to say that because it is still developing it is excused is simply ridiculous.
We should not be negotiating when Global Warming will happen but rather be negotiating the efforts that we should put forth. The bottom line, as Manjinder previously mentioned, is that the Poles are going to melt and we should do something about it instead of making up excuses as to why we can't do anything about it. Yes, businesses may suffer, but what will those same businesses do when Global Warming is here?
But what can we, all we can say is that thankfully some effort, although minimal, is being made.
-- Sarah Aly; Period 8
Ms. Aucoin - pd. 8 (Amie H.)
ReplyDelete1) Many of the developing countries are just starting to reap the benefits of industrialization both economically and socially. The consequences of this bear a heavy burden on the environment. But the developing countries feel it is unfair to have to cut short their own progression as a country in order to save the environment when there are other bigger, and more industrialized countries that have done a considerable amount of damage. I supposed this could be considered unfair but at the same time, I feel like the developing countries aren't looking into the future. They may be benefitting now, but present industrialization is not sustainable and will eventually take a toll on all the countries heading towards that direction. However, I do feel that the more wealthier countries have an obligation to the environment. They have caused much of the damage inflicted on the environment and should thus take responsibility for doing so. I'm not saying they should shoulder the responsibility fully, but it should definitely be acknowledged.
2) China has surpassed the United States in the amount of CO2 emissions. This however, is a pretty recent change and it does not take away from the fact that the United States still releases a considerable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I still consider China a developing country because although they may pollute more, they still do not match the U.S. in terms of the economy and capitalist market. They are however, growing at a very fast pace and will most likely catch up soon.
3) The big businesses stand to be hurt the most from a strong protocol on reducing the problems of climate change. The agreement at Copenhagen may include stricter regulation of businesses and can interfere with their economic growth.
Developing nations have argued that wealthier nations should sacrifice more because they are the ones with the money and the technology to engineer plans that will aid in the fight against climate change. Wealthier nations have already had their industrialized revolutions, they have already added to the growing carbon emissions, and they continue to do so, while developing nations, like China and India want their chance to become industrialized, thereby boosting their own economy. They say it’s not fair that the blame has fallen on them just because the problem of climate change escalates now, when business is booming for them. In fact, it is the wealthier nations that are adding to this blame as, they are funding and supporting the use of factories to make cheaper consumer goods abroad. The wealthier nations are exploiting these developing nations. So with this, I do believe wealthier nations can do more; we have more power and more influence, so we can make change. As an analogy, if the Copenhagen conference was personified with Hollywood celebrities, America would be maybe Hugh Laurie (House); intelligent, deft, famous, but just a little stubborn. With such fame and brilliance, why not use it for good? If we can fork out $100 billion for the war in Iraq, then surely we can find some money for something more practical, more important, like say…SAVING THE PLANET!!!
ReplyDeleteDeveloping countries don't want to be burdened with the responsibility of reducing emissions by increasing costs. These countries want to be able to expand and have access to new technologies quickly and efficiently. If the amount of emissions that these countries could have is capped, then development will be slowed because they have to worry about another aspect of expanding. Developing countries should be able to have access to new technology which should be able to cut emissions. Despite having a high initial cost, new technology should be more efficient, both in cost and in emissions.
ReplyDeleteAlthough China is said to be the largest polluter, the United States is a close second. The main factor however, is China's population. The amount of emission per person in China is much lower than the emission per person in the United States because of the difference in population. Many of the big cities in China are developed, and limits of emissions should be placed there. However, in the rural, underdeveloped areas, limits should be looser because the area has not been industrialized.
Many big businesses lobby against climate change because they are afraid that regulations will limit their profits. Commercials and the media have also warped public opinion in the passing of regulation.
1)je suis tout à fait d'accord quand il dit que les pays industrialisés devraient montrer l'exemple car avant toute chose se sont les plus polluants et je pense qu'ils ont plus de moyens pour et qu'ils peuvent financièrement soutenir des projets qui peuvent améliorer la condition terrestre.
ReplyDeleteEn effet les pays en voie de développement ou peu voire pas du tout industrialisés veulent tout faire pour atteindre les sommets donc si les USA ou la Chine ne véhiculent pas le bon exemple c'est la perte de la TERRE.
2)Moi je dis que cela serait un mensonge de la part de la Chine car rappelons le elle fait partie de la Triade, les pays les plus développés .
Je pense que cela n'est qu'un pretexte pour ne pas prendre ses responsabilités vis a vis du monde
3) je pense que c'est la course au plus fort donc c'est tout a fait naturel que chaque pays veille s'enrichir meme si cela passe par des polluants et en appauvrissant la terre en utilisant toutes ses ressources.
Cela doit etre un travail d'équipe , on est conscient que chacun veuille réussir dans la vie mais a quel prix ? il a de plus en plus de malades, les forets disparaissent, l'océan reprend sa place avec des iles qui disparaissent.
c'est d'ailleurs l'objectif du développement durable offrir une terre saine aux générations futures.
First of all, i am on the side of the poorer countries beacause first, they are those who suffer the climates changes and the global warming consequences the most and second ,because they don't have means in terms of money of facing such a situation. For example, poor villagers who live at the edge of the sea in Senegal must move their houses very often because of the rise of the level of the sea , it's a terrible situation for them and they don't even know how they'll do in the future when the water will have cover all the beach.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree on the principe that wealthier countries should sacrifice more to fight climate changes because it is not the case of all of them, but most of the times they are those who pollute the most.
About China i still consider it is a develloping countries it is the race for economic development and business that prevent this country from understanding how catastrophic the situation is. At the end of the climate summit in copenhagen President Obama said that they have concluded "a meaningful agreement" i think it is not enought because the different world leaders didn't determine any concret figures for the diminution of CO2 emissions.
The difficulties of the situation are in the fact that countries must find a solution to reduce co2 emissions but at the same time we musn't slow down the devellopment of countries such as China or South Africa the solution lies in renewable energies , unfortunately some of these develloping countries are not ready to reorganize their system of industry ,they prefer the easier solution , it's really a pity.