The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
UrbanBourbon has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 109470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Hello, I'm glad to meet you.
I hope this debate goes well.

I represent those who are against this motion. First, why should developed countries NOT have the obligation to help these under-developed countries in the first place? The world itself is fighting climate change and every country has contributed to climate change at one point or another and it's every country's obligation to help prevent since it is affecting everyone. Most third world countries like Somalia, Maldives, Bangladesh, etc. fought tooth and nail with the help of other countries and the UN and there is not a lot of progress and they end up depending on other countries. Second, why do undeveloped countries need or depend on the help of developed countries and the UN? It is because of their economic vulnerability. Climate change will hit underdeveloped countries the most because of their economic vulnerability. And this is what makes these countries dependant on foreign aid since they can't afford it themselves which leads to lack of funding on better alternatives and better technology. Third, why can't developed countries help these under-developed countries when they themselves are in a better position? It is because more developed have bigger problems to deal with. Take a look at the US, they are considerably developed and have far more better technology to help their climate change crisis. Then why don't help on a bigger scale? It's like what I said, the more developed you are, the more likely your problems are bigger. This is what I currently have on my mind as I write this. I hope you can debate with me.



I am strongly in favor of the motion that developed countries are obliged to give aid to developing countries in the fight against climate change. We need change in the economy all around the world independent of where it is working, in order to have any chance of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants to a level that results in a conservation of our planet for later generations.

The contributing factors to these emissions have to be tackled and therefore they first have to be differentiated. We have the contribution of developed countries like the US and the states of Europe which is huge and besides the contribution of China one of the major problems which need attendants. The thing is that in these countries we have sufficient technological advances and also an economy that is capable of switching over to a sustainable economy. This is obviously not an easy task and needs both incentives and requires a great amount of recourses to enable this change, but even if it is done the problem is, that such a change is absolutely futile, if it isn"t coupled with a similar change in developing countries.

And here we have to differentiate again between countries like China which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the moment, but has a working economy which is able to pay for such a change and has also the incentives to create the change, and the other developing countries just barely beginning to build an economy that is competitive and where the technological advances as well as the technological knowhow just lacks. While the first category is one of the most influential in a fight against climate change, we have good reason to hope, that with the right incentives in the developed world and the increasing change to a sustainable economy there, it will lead to a change in the economy as they need to stay in the market and in the technological race.

The major problem, that the developed world can"t change with its own action without the use of direct financial and material aid, is in the last case of the countries just beginning to industrialize into having economies that are competitive. In these cases we have an economy that needs mostly a fast rate of growth and that is also growing fast already. The thing is that for a fast growth you need cheap energy and at the moment coal or gas are still the cheapest way of obtaining energy. Therefore those countries with a weak economy won"t care about whether or not the energy they use is sustainable or friendly to the environment, but they will just use them, as they have no incentive to change their behavior. This will be happening especially due to the fact that they feel to have the right to use those sources of energy similar to us as we have used them for a long time, making us the main contributors to global warming. They feel it is their good right also to use their resources to grow their economy. Sadly we can"t allow them to do that because if every developing country were allowed to use as much and as long those energy sources as we have, the environment would be damaged beyond repair as well as for all future generations.

Therefore we have to prevent them from using these energy sources even though they rightly have the feeling that it is their good right to use them just as much as we did. We therefore need incentives. One is given by nature in reaction to the destruction of our environment and climate change, as it is especially affecting those countries in development. As this isn"t sufficient we have to give the other part of the incentive which can be nothing but financial aid in order to pay for them to build a sustainable economy helping our climate. We can"t not do it, because else all our work in our own economy is not helping as other developing countries with the growing economy due to them being able to produce cheaper with the cheaper energy, will just emit even more bringing no net benefit.

To your points. Firstly you say that it is futile to help them, as there won"t be sufficient progress. While I have to agree that the progress is not enough, I have to answer that it isn"t enough anywhere in the world. In order to bring about bigger effects in their industry, leading to better results for our climate it takes even more incentive and especially cheaper technology in order for them to use it. The problem is that we cannot say that, because we haven"t changed everything and our work hasn"t been as efficient, we will stop the effort as any action against global warming in our industry is absolutely dependent upon the success even if gradually as it else destroys once more all our progress.

Your second point seems to be more in favor of aid going to the developing countries. While they are increasingly dependent upon the aid as their economy is weak we have the problem that withdrawing financial aid, won"t benefit their economy. They would still be dependent upon the aid but just wouldn"t get it, leading to their economy breaking down. The problem is that their economy isn"t competitive if compared to the developed world and they won"t be able to grow or device better technology in order to increase the stability of their economy. The only thing they can do is produce things cheaper, which is done by exploiting workers and using cheap energy leading to climate change. Therefore the reduction of aid won"t bring a strong economy in those countries, but rather a collapse leading to even more use of cheap energy affecting our climate. Therefore we need to strengthen our financial aid for those countries in order for their economy to work on a sustainable basis.

Now to your last point. While it is true that developed countries having more money and more impact also have to work with other problems, I don"t agree with your conclusion that they therefore can"t afford this help. Less developed countries spend less in total, but they are also poorer. You have to look at it in light of what their financial power is and in this respect you will see that developing countries actually have even less to spend on it and still do so. The developed countries such as the US or the states of Europe use much of their financial power on other issues which are important, but they not just should but have to have and take the resources in order to fight climate change. This is because firstly they themselves have lived upon our environment destroying it up to a great extend and therefore have a duty to pay to other countries if they don"t want them to do the same what they would have every right to. Secondly because they have the greatest financial power they have again the duty to pay the most for a problem that has to be solved for the whole world. It is also absolutely necessary as else all money spend on preventing climate change is wasted, as it won"t have any effect. Therefore we have to pay it in order to actually use our money.

For those reasons I conclude that it is absolutely vital that the developed countries keep up their support and also increase it.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, I thank you for going for this topic a go and giving an in-depth analysis of the topic given

Before I go point by point, I will re-crystalize my case for better understanding.
Let us go to the motion. By definition "Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change" now the key words here is "have to" which is morally obligated to help these undeveloped countries . Now why I oppose this motion is that why are developed countries obligated to help underdeveloped countries while they are both fighting the same climate change with the same causes. I agree that we have to change our economic world for better chances to fight climate change, but most countries can"t afford the technology as you and I said. But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help them is for the following reasons: (I won"t regurgitate my old points but I"ll brush on them briefly) As I said the foreign aid given to these undeveloped countries have been improving but it is not improving the country that is receiving it therefore the foreign aid will go to waste even if they go to the right places since people can properly manage the foreign aid on their own. Secondly, as I said more developed countries cannot support the underdeveloped countries in a bigger scale since they have bigger things to deal with, while the underdeveloped countries have smaller problems compared to developed countries. But if you consider the underdeveloped countries problems they are pretty huge in their perception like the poverty in the Philippines, it"s a small country but it"s a big problem over there so just like developed countries have big problems, underdeveloped countries have bigger problems since they are most probably poor while facing a problem like climate change that is a very expensive problem that is draining their economy. So these countries rely on foreign aid since they are already in a bad position in their economy and instead of money going to the fight of climate change it"s now going to different places instead. Therefore while developed countries can help them, they shouldn"t be obligated to the underdeveloped countries. It"s an obligation to the entire Earth to help preserve it. It is my responsibility, your responsibility and many others responsibility to help prevent it. That"s why I believe they shouldn"t be obligated to countries but to be obligated to the further future generations of humanity and to Mother Nature that helps humanity everyday.

See you on the third round!
(P.S. You have a great sense in the debate, I wish for greatness for you)


Let"s start out with the "have to" part of the motion. While I agree with you that it invokes a moral obligation, I also see a second practical part in it. The practical part is, as I have described, the necessity to help in order for any of our own work against global warming to have any effect. If we switch our economy towards sustainable, clean energy this will, at least at the start, be more costly than just using coal and gas, which will make production more expensive. As the market goes to the lowest cost it will give those developing countries, which just have no other chance of building an economy that is stable as they lack the financial recourses, the incentive to fill the gap created with cheaper production on the costs of the environment leading in total to no positive effect for our climate.

In addition to that point we have the problem of a growing population in those developing countries. As they will with time demand a similar standard of living to the developed world, it will again go on the costs of our climate. We can"t change this wish for a higher standard of living, which also brings us into the moral sphere. We can"t prevent this from happening, but we can prevent the growth of the population as, as we have always seen, an increase in the education and standard of living diminishes the growth in population. Those countries need to get to an acceptable standard of living to prevent an explosion in the population and harm to the environment. This increase in the standard of living can"t be achieved by the countries without help as they lack the financial capacities, which is why they need financial aid and this is especially important if we want them to do this economic growth it in a sustainable way. We need to create the incentive for them to do it in such a way. Now this is our moral obligation as we have always developed our wealth on the oppression of the weaker countries.

The second part of our moral obligation lies in the fact that we are the cause of the major problem of climate change. Our behavior in the last centuries and also now is the reason for the development, which is why it is our obligation to pay the costs. If we don"t want other countries which develop now to use exactly the same way of developing their industry we have to pay for it, as we can"t just say that they aren"t allowed to do so, while we were.

This is why both on a practical and a moral level we are obliged to pay for the development in the developing countries even though it both fights climate change.

Now to your points. The first one is again that the foreign aid isn"t sufficiently effective as a means to improve their industry. While I have to agree in some cases, I have to object to the generalization. Foreign aid is the main reason many of the developing countries even have any stable economy and only with financial aid it is possible to build such an economy. While the industry that is established there is still in no way close to friendly to the environment, we can"t be surprised as I have explained above. We need to make the availability of new technology in this field better and also have to increase our financial aid in order for them to have any chance of using sustainable sources of energy in their industry. Your model of cutting aid won"t result in a benefit for the climate but rather in the inability to innovate from a now insufficient economy towards an industry that is sustainable. Also we have to be giving stronger incentives to direct the funds towards sustainability which hasn"t been done so far which is another reason for why we can"t expect results already in this direction.

Your second point starts out self contradicting, but the argument is that due to other problems in the country the aid won"t be used to prevent global warming. I have to agree that as I have said before we have to increase the incentives for actually doing it as well as try to lower the cost of the technology. But also I think that the solution of the other problems is connected to the solution of the problem of climate change. If you have a poor population with a low standard of living in a country with a weak economy, the people will use what they can use in order to survive. The concern for the climate, while mostly having the biggest impacts right there in those countries, is still a secondary problem of the future that won"t be tackled if left by itself, as there are more urgent problems. This will stay exactly this way until a development is finished as all this time the least expensive mean will be taken in order to reach the goal of economic growth and better living conditions. Now if we want them to not do this we have to solve those problem which is always only possible if we allow economic growth in those countries and if we don"t want that growth to be on the shoulders of our climate, we have to pay the gap towards them being able to do it with clean energy and stress it with incentives. Therefore we need again an increase in foreign help, which, as I have explained above, is our duty to provide in order for them to build an industry that is clean and sustainable.

To conclude I also think that it is a global problem but the main thing we can"t forget is that it is a global problem produced by the now developed countries and that if we wish for other countries to go through their development in a different way, we are the ones obliged to pay for it.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.