Rich and developed nations can not give up their competitive advantages in terms of production, to decrease the impact on their poorer neighbours. Nor will they compensate for the damage that will be caused in the future by these advantages. I disagree with people who think that rich nations are liable to decrease the impact of climate change since many rich nations built their wealth prior to the industrial revolution. It is perhaps globalisation which is the greatest threat to the world over causing inaction to climate change. Moreover, the moral argument for reparation by rich countries for damages caused in poor nations due to climate change is redundant within the politics of climate change. Developed countries refuse to touch the issue since they know that this can be a box of limitless liabilities. I completely doubt that there can be any climate agreement if the poorer countries insist on compensation even though it is clear that poor countries will be disproportionately impacted by climate change. How can you quantify what that impact will be decades into the future? The severity of the problem is so immense that even the rich countries will be hard-pressed to adapt to the twin problems of both climate change and the need to migrate away from hydrocarbon burning-driven economies.
Amal Jacob
Communications student based in Delhi, India Developing countries cause more damage to the climate because they are still in the developing stage and burn more fossil fuels. They have production units that do not match up to the benchmarks set by their developed counterparts. Developing nations may have mostly rural structures but they obviously cause more drastic climatic changes than developed ones. Developed countries are just catering to their citizens through existing resources, whereas developing countries are not only doing that but also building their economy, industries, etc. Developed countries have numerous regulations in place to keep pollution and emissions in check, whereas the underdeveloped countries do not and in fact many times, required maintenance repair work of existing production units is ignored, due to lack of funds. This may result in the need for new industrial machinery or production units that may cause more damage to the environment. I think developed countries do much more for the environment in terms of recycling, waste reduction and banning harmful pollutants since they can afford it as compared to their developing counterparts. Many developed nations thoroughly regulate the amount of pollution and exhaust that vehicles cause City-wide recycling programs are common throughout the USA, but are not seen at all in most developed or any developing economies on a wide scale. Many developing countries in Asia and Africa actually account for a large share of world’s particle pollution.
From Mr Fredric Francis
Student based in Cape Peninsula, South Africa
Climate change is natural. It has been a constant through history and I think human beings will adapt to it. Adaptation is the only answer to any scientific environmental change. Of course it is man who changes the environment through his use of things that may have a higher carbon footprint. But don’t we all strive for a better quality of life and work hard to enjoy such things? I think I have worked too hard and too long to give up my lifestyle for those who have not, or may not have the resources to. Do I feel for the people who are homeless? Of course I do. But for that I am ready to donate charity individually or to organisations that can efficiently help those in need. Maybe government bodies in some countries cannot, the corruption and the overhead that governments bring with them reduces the donated amounts to pence. I think it is my moral obligation to help people in need but that does not necessarily mean giving up things I have worked hard to own or enjoy. Moreover, in a place like UAE where temperature is so high, it is almost impossible to give up things like air-conditioning, vehicles. I understand that there are people who work outside in the heat, but that does not mean that everyone has to go out and work in the heat. Individual sacrifices to help the needy are a long shot at solving the issue. The solution is instead in using technology to find ways to use things that will reduce carbon emissions and cause a decrease in the global atmospheric temperature. There is a need to use donations wisely either to help these people who maybe suffering from heat waves and such effects or to fund research and development of environment-friendly methods of living.
From Mr A. Paul
Software engineer based in Dubai
Demanding that one radically change one’s lifestyle through substantially reducing one’s carbon footprint may sound challenging, considering the vanishingly small difference these individual actions may make. However, I feel that if many individuals collectively decide to see this issue through, then it may create a domino effect where people join a mass movement to work towards an Earth with lesser greenhouse gas emissions. Developed nations produce a vast bulk of greenhouse gases which have caused the Earth’s climate to change. They have also advanced the most from the legacy of industrialization which has caused the problem. Thus, they should be the ones to bear the biggest burden of whatever solution is agreed upon by the global community. With their sprawling urban centres and pollution-spewing factories, they are much more to blame than their sustainable, rural counterparts. They must take a step to help their poor neighbours in establishing systems that can help people survive the effects. I feel that rich nations and rich people should collectively and individually reduce their carbon footprint in order to lessen the environmental impact. With the increase in the number of heat-wave incidents and the rise in global temperature, it does not take an expert to predict loss of human lives in countries that have a large population that is poverty-stricken. As human beings it is our duty to help other human beings by lowering our carbon footprint, maybe through simple things like using mass public transportation and lesser consumption of meat.
From Ms Liza B.
Nurse and activist, based in Maldives
Human beings have a moral obligation to help reduce actions that will lead to climate change. It will really help others who are suffering from its effects. We are all contributors to this climate change phenomena and we are the ones suffering from it too. If we have a sense of moral responsibility we will be able to help each other lessen or prevent the damage on the future generation. We could build a better environment that could have a good balance in our ecosystem and in return we might build a safer place to live in. A greater development for a better society that will benefit us all. All humanity will eventually suffer from the effects of climate change. It is important to decrease the impact in the whole world, developing countries need to realise this and start the damage control. We all live in a world trading knowledge and skills what could be put to use to come up with ways through which individual use of things will cause a lesser impact on climate change. Working together will create a safer world collectively. Different ideas, theories or hypothesis can develop more a better way of producing a tool, equipment or technology that will lessen the effects of climate change. Government intervention would help a lot to have a better nation. Government has the authority and power that will support and build an intervention process to lessen the effect of climate change. It would be easier to work out any solution if we have the government backing people up.
From Mr. Bhernel Ben Rejoso
Event organiser based in Dubai