- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This house believes that developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
This house believes that developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This house believes that developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries.Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
43 weeks 1 hour ago
They certainly have a responsibility of trying to solve it because, if the world does end because of global warming, all that effort that they gave to developing their country will be for nothing.
Unfortunately that is where you are wrong and it is the reason why the developed countries are unlikely to simply accept responsibility and attempt to fix it. This is because frankly much of the west is in climates that are reletively benigne they are not going to be as badly hit by climate change. In countries like Britain there is also a perception problem; people rather like the idea of the climate in the UK being a bit warmer. However equally the problem is that frankly the developed world can afford to adapt to climate change; the Dutch and raise their sea walls, the London barrier can be enlarged, we can protect against more extreme weather and buildings can be made stronger to stand up to stronger storms. It is exactly because these countries are developed that climate change is really unlikely to have a massive impact. Certainly it often seems like there is more enthusiasm for adapting to climate change than solving the undertlying problem.
It should also be noted that we could solve climate change but vested interests are against it; industries that produce CO2 are very powerful and dont want to loose out. On the other hand adapting to climate change would benefit existing industries rather than creating new ones that would destroy vested interests; so which do you think those who want the status quo want to do?
42 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
On my end, I do believe there should be no higher or lower obligation to combat climate change.
It may be true that corporations are certainly not willing to directly combat climate change and would rather adopt to it because they stand to lose money, and that countries which are developed are already moving to adapt and suit themselves to suit the situation, it doesn't change the fact that they have an obligation to assist in combatting climate change. The reason is simple, they have the capability to do so, and even though they themselves are more able to adapt to climate change, unless they are willing to assist countries that are not as capable, then it must be said that they should do their part to combat climate change. Just like how developed countries are quick to jump on the bandwagon to give aid, voice out discontent on loss of life. and other such issues, they should also be willing to make minor sacrifices which would help to combat the problem. Why do I say this ? Because they stand to lose countries that can provide benefits to them.
And developing countries shouldn't be allowed to pass the burden on either. Considering the fact that they are the ones most contributing the climate change in the first place (by virtue of wiping out forests for new industrial and residential areas, and also heavy use of fossil fuels to fuel their needs for power), they should be responsible in handling the negative externalities that arise from their activities. We can't have older brothers cleaning up after their little ones who are growing up, we have to teach them responsibility, no ? (Please do forgive the simple analogy) . Besides, developing countries, as the biggest contributors, are also in the best position to combat climate change because through careful regulation of their activities and ideally, technological breakthroughs that allow less emissions to be made, they can make a big dent in their carbon footprint.
This however, is just where I stand on the issue, which is that there should be no higher obligation, but both have to actively work at combating the problem in order to make sure that it doensn't become a problem we cannot battle.
I apologize for the spelling and grammar mistakes .
42 weeks 16 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
USA, Europe and others countries similar are highly developed countries. They have already solved many problems that other developing countries are trying to solve. I feel that they are responsible of helping avoid global warming because, since they have already solved many problems, they have some extra time that they can use to help the climate change. I also feel it is their obligation because, while developing, they might have contributed to the climate change and they are responsible for it, entitling them to fix the problem. They certainly have a responsibility of trying to solve it because, if the world does end because of global warming, all that effort that they gave to developing their country will be for nothing.