The study, published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, shows that more than half of the highest-emitting countries rank among the least vulnerable to climate change and nearly two-thirds of the countries with low or moderate emissions are acutely vulnerable to the effects.
Researchers classified more than 10% of countries as “free riders,” ranking in the top fifth in terms of emissions and the bottom 20% in terms of vulnerability. These countries include the United States, much of Europe and Australia.
On the opposite end, six countries were classified as “forced riders” with relatively low emissions and high vulnerability. Some island countries with low emissions, like Kiribati, could be wiped off the face of the Earth thanks to rising sea levels.
How dare anyone suggest otherwise. To sit from your comfy home and say that the developed world owes nothing to the developing world despite how much you have benefited from the exploitation of these countries and the amount carbon emissions the development of the developed world unleashed and your lifestyle also unleashes into the atmosphere is criminal.
Because they are a bunch of pillaging thieves, who promoted one of the most evil ideologies known to manking; aka imperialism and colonialism. People coming from the privileged societies of the scourge of the world known as the West, have the gall to suggest that third world nations are ungrateful beneficiaries of their aid, even though if they actually tried to repay the amount of natural resources they leeched from the so-called third world countries, most of the so-called "First World" countries of this world would go bankrupt.
Global warming, for example, is the most serious environmental problem right now. As we all know, emission of carbon dioxide is a a main cause. While blaming developing countries like China and India for releasing considerable amount of carbon dioxide, people are likely to forget that the carbon dioxide emission amount in USA is just followed China, ranked second (China's population triples America's!) As for emission per-capita , the figure for China is around 7.2 compared with 17.3 for USA in 2011 (EDGAR). Also, when developed countries were transforming into industrial ones, large quantity of CO2 was released. Therefore we should do something to fix these problems, and what we have done yet is not enough. More importantly, climate change is not only a problem for developing countries, it's an issue for all nations, since we have more competencies to deal with this problem, we should take more responsibilities and work harder on it.
While segments of the American public may remain skeptical, the scientific debate over climate change is over. The global climate system is changing and primarily because of the burning of fossil fuels. Nearly all of the contribution to climate change has come from a couple dozen wealth, industrialized nations. Unfortunately, climate change is set to most severely impact other nations--particularly nations who have done little to contribute to the problem. Nations like Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Burkina Faso, and dozens of others have done practically nothing to contribute to climate change. But these are the countries that will be hit the hardest and who do not have the capacity to adapt. The US is wealth. We can adapt. We can adjust. Bangladesh can't. They are set to lose about 20% of their land area, displacing tens of millions of people by 2100 on account of sea level rise, which happens on account of rising global temperatures driven by increased greenhouse gas emissions. There is only one ethical response to this and it is to humbly and compassionately assist them in their plight. You cannot click "No" to this question and still claim to be responding ethically. Economically, perhaps. As a good capitalist, sure. But as an ethical humanitarian, not a chance.
This is the perfect example. The multinationals of the developed world sell their old ships to Bangladesh, instead of paying to have them cleaned and disposed in an environmentally safe way in the first world. In that country, the ships are disposed of in a largely regulation free zone of the world where workers (many of them children) break them up by hand for a $1 a day. Bangladesh should have regulations and international regulations should stop em but they simply can't afford the regulations because they are two indebted by centuries of global banking cartels(Bangladesh is a former British colony) . Those same cartels that were behind the colonial super-powers with which today's global power structure is still based largely upon. Those same colonial super powers have played such large roles recently (talking 20th century history stuff here folks) in drawing the maps and doling out the borders and power structures in the developing world I think they now have the duty to act responsibly in regards to commerce, trade, environmental and worker protections with those countries. This is not about the first world owing a debt to third world....It's about it being time for the first world to stop stealing from the third and to cancel the third worlds fraudulent fiat debt to the first.
Climate change is primarily spurred by these countries. Some may not consider these countries to owe anything to the rest of the world, but in the simplest form of morality it isn't right to damage something that is important to someone else. It doesn't matter if there wasn't some kind of international law or particular rules in place over it because that doesn't change that it's wrong.
Developed countries rely on technological advancements and industrialisation and they are the main causes of environmental problems, most of which affect the developing world such as Bangaldesh. Therefore they should be help responsible to pay debts to these countries as they created the environmental problems for them. Yes
Developing countries do emit some carbon dioxide and other green house gases however, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by developed countries is incomparably higher. Also, they owe a debt because they are stopping from other countries to develop and get richer. LEDCs have to spend money to protect their country from getting damaged by the climate change MEDCs are causing, so they cannot pay back their financial debt to MEDCs, and they have a very small chance of developing.
Global warming is happening in the world right now. Natural disasters are all growing stronger and happening more and more frequently. The ocean levels are rising. Who and what caused this you ask? Careless people who only care about getting to work on time. Rich people who dump oil into rivers and smoke into the air. All around the world, people in developed countries are polluting the environment, causing climate change, and not doing anything about it. Developing countries, on the other hand, don't really produce all that much in the first place. They, alone, cannot cause climate change and global warming. For that matter, they can't even break the ozone layer how it is now. But developed countries can. They change the climate, and therefore, owe a debt to the developing world.
You can not simply assume that those countries that develop technologies and processes are one hundred percent and eternally responsible for the impacts of these developments. Many developing countries have industry which operates under far more lax standards that those imposed in the United States and similar nations. Laying blame does not solve anything. All countries should be expected to clean up their act from this point onward. The unfortunate reality is that most economies reward businesses that can outsource production to countries where cost can be lowered without concern for the environmental impact.
Some of the original scientists who influenced Al Gore and his campaign for action against global warming have admitted that they falsified their data. Despite this, many people seem to just ignore this and continue to believe something must be done. The idea that developing nations should pay is simply wealth redistribution, which is a communist idea. In order to accomplish this, a global authority must be very powerful. The real purpose of Al Gore & those with him is to rally ignorant people in favor of a global government.
No, developed countries do not owe a debt to the developing world because of climate change because climate change is not a proved fact, and developing countries already receive a lot of aid from developed countries. Not to mention, under-developed countries probably pollute as much as developed countries. If it wasn't for developed countries, there would be more people living in squalor. Also, many developed countries don't have any money, as they are borrowing it from others.
No, I do not think that developed countries owe a debt to the developing world because of climate change because it was not intentional. This is a rather lame excuse, but the damage that has been caused by developed countries has been happening since the Industrial Revolution and they did not have the means or the understanding at that time to realize the long-term effects on climate change.
Developed countries are not the only countries that should be accused of climate change. Developing countries (such as China) now have as many vehicles and more factories than any western country. In addition, western countries often donate to the less fortunate countries in many situations. Developing countries yearn to be developed, so it's just human nature.
While it is true that the U.S. and Europe have been the main polluters when it comes to emission of greenhouse gases, they don't owe anything to developing countries. India and China are not far behind as emerging world economies that have the potential to become equal-sized polluters. However, developed countries should not be punished because developing countries have already benefited smaller countries by giving them carbon credits which make money for the country.
Claiming that developed countries owe a debt to developing countries for their contribution to climate change is wrong in several ways. First of all, climate change is a naturally occurring process which happens to be on a cycle that varies from some previous cycles. Secondly, even if developed countries did contribute to climate change, they owe no debt to developing countries. It is similar to the argument of, whether a country that owns all the oil in the world should pay dividends to all other countries for the good of the planet. As with all other changes in the world, people must learn to adapt to change, and that includes developing countries.
All the progress achieved by the developing countries does not affect nature; its because of their effective utilization of resources and economic and political steps. It may or may not affect climate change, so we cannot blame the entire developing nations.
If climate change is a result of the actions that developed countries have taken in introducing new technology and becoming careless while scientifically advancing, it would make all the more sense that they would have the upper hand in understanding how to deal with the situation and can be successful in introducing newer technology that can start playing a beneficial role. If developing countries has to make some sort of compensation to developing countries, it can easily be assumed that that money would be used by those countries to better themselves. In bettering themselves I mean they too would strive to become technologically developed because they would be receiving the funds they need in order to take that step. In the end, they would create the same situation that already developed countries created thus proving all of this would be senseless and impractical. The debts that are being spoken about to be made to the developing countries should be put to use by the developed countries to make sound advancements which take climate change into consideration.
A debt can be made to people that accumulate a lot of expenses. The climate shouldn't be a factor in making people owe debts and that wouldn't be a good enough reason to make everyone have to suffer. The countries don't have money to pay any debts anyways and could put them further into debt.