hey daddy That being said though we(Indians) have a lot of natural renewable resources that we haven't tapped into yet. I mean think about it, we have sufficient sunlight, long coasts for tidal energy investment, wind energy investments and we do have enough nuclear energy. All of that combined can make us independent of traditional resources like coal or Petroleum products. Our Public transport can easily be 100% electric. Its just that it requires investment which governments don't make and spend it on Military (we're at 4th). Scams are huge too, and with 50% less scams, India can easily be among the lowest polluting countries
Yeah per capita we are much cleaner than say America. China has a lot of pollution but per capita its nowhere near America. I say who should pay more depends on who exploited it more and benefited more. So that means UK, Germany, France, USA and Russia.
yes, but they are also the ones building all of the biggest solar farms in the world, and China itself is adding double the amount of renewable of the USA: www.originenergy.com.au/blog/lifestyle/5-largest-solar-farms-in-the-world.html (Developping nations leads in this area) www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/ (India alone is planning to add almost as much as the US)
It's misleading to describe fossil fuel emissions in terms of country output. What matters is per capita output and developed nations on a per capita basis are by far the biggest producers of fossil fuel emmisions, not to mention the fact that they consume many of the products produced in developing nations. That is the bottom line.
CO2 Emissions per capita 2016 Canada = 18.62 tons per capita USA = 15.56 tons per capita Japan = 9.68 tons per capita China = 7.45 tons per capita UK = 5.59 tons per capita Indonesia = 2.03 tons per capita India = 1.92 tons per capita edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9 CO2 Emissions per capita 2015 USA = 15.53 tons per capita Canada = 15.32 tons per capita Japan = 8.99 tons per capita China = 6.59 tons per capita UK = 5.99 tons per capita Indonesia = 1.72 tons per capita India = 1.58 tons per capita www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W7HbHmgzaUk CO2 Emissions per capita 2014 USA = 16.5 tons per capita Canada = 15.1 tons per capita Japan = 9.5 tons per capita China = 7.5 tons per capita UK = 6.5 tons per capita Indoensia = 1.8 tons per capita India = 1.7 tons per capita data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc?year_high_desc=false
ADerpyReality Australian power prices are among the highest in the world, every time you install a renewable source you add to that bill! The 15 billion in subsidies we have spent is coming out of the working/middle class pockets, whilst the rich are all investing in renewables, ask yourself why? Wind turbines are killing birds at a horrendous rate, research is just coming to light regarding worms, insects & small animals leaving area’s where wind farms are built. I’m all for renewables, but once again we are being rushed into something that seems to be doing more harm than good, and making some poorer and some richer.
Indian Govt is nowadays focussing more on production of energy using Non renewable sources. Several tenders for building coal power plants was scrapped and these funds are being used to build solar power plants.
Molten Lava developing countries like India and China care more about the environment and per capita emissions is a lot lower than western nations. yet somehow some westerners dare to accuse developing countries as the main contributors of global emission lol.
Batman But they're focussing on cleaner coal plants, which is pretty good considering China's historical use of coal. Switching to cleaner coal could drop it's emissions by half
Sadly, people don't see the big problems until there is one iconic event that reflects said problem. Gradually getting closer to hell itself simply doesn't get enough attention because it's just harder to see. When powerful people think of climate change they think of some dumb ice chunks melting somewhere very far from home and maybe some animals they've never seen in real life going extinct. Tornados? Tsunamis? Heat waves and colder winters? No biggie, those have been on the news forever, nothing new, won't happen to me. "Decade" is a big word, I just care about the million dollars our company is getting next week. They don't think of their family dying or their economy collapsing because we're not good at seeing ahead until it's in our face. As a professional procrastinator for everything I can testify this. If nobody does anything to take action and kickstart the change, I'm pretty scared of what that eye-opening event will be. Just imagine.
“Turning millions of tons of food into biofuels is currently costing millions of lives. But who cares about that when “going green” makes me feel special!” - some environmentalist
I mean, I get your logic. People in the world are dying of hunger and we do turn food into biofuel. Unfortunately there is no profit incentive in getting food to poor people. There are also logistical challenges in getting food to more remote places. Not that that should excuse us for not doing it but again, no profit incentive. Minute Brain Person commented below that as long as profit is the main motivation we will not have a society that values human lives.
Calling developing countries like India, China and Brazil "POOR" is simply ignorant! The right term for these giants is 'NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS'!
rag 06 that is so true! I hate people who say that India, China, and Brazil are poor! They don’t know anything but just pretend like they k ow everything but they DON’T!
Hello Boy Are you dumb? You can't compare poverty in the West and the rest of the world that 21 percent is actually people actually suffering from lack of shelter food and water! If you want u.k standards for Indian poverty it would be a lot higher
The companies who cause the emissions should pay including if it's government owned. That used to be the thought, until oil companies bought out newspapers and lobbied government. To make it there problem now companies buy out newspapers to complain how the government is interfering to much even though it was them who caused this situation. It's mind-bogglingly annoying
I sort of agree, but then there's a big problem with implementation. For example, despite CFC's being flatly illegal, they are still used at detectable levels. With so much CO2 and methane already in our atmosphere, and so many natural sources, tracking down violators would be nearly impossible. In addition, it would add major regulatory hurtles to development and to small farmers throughout the world.
It could be built into the price as a carbon tax but your right that the problem is that the people who have caused this mess have spent billions on trying to lie cheat steal and bribe their way out of paying their interest. I have had this thought that maybe we should treat the energy made by fossil fuels as a loan with a interest payment tax but I don't know how practical such a thought would be if it is even feasible at all.
I want to make a joke about who would pay if we _don't_ fix climate change, but the people who would lose the most are the ones who can spare the least. The tropics are a terrible place to build a civilization... The best answer is, of course, that everyone should work together and save the world. But we can hardly get a dozen acquaintances working together, so getting hundreds of different nations (many of whom view one another as mortal enemies) seems unlikely.
Even though I'm not really confident about individuals themselves, I believe in humanity as a whole. From two world wars, plagues and almost being extinct in the beginning of our history, humanity always prospered. We'll rise to the challenge. But, of course, being confident isn't enough. We have to do something. So please don't forget to turn off the lights when you leave the room ;)
Well, almost every nation agreed to the Paris Agreement of 2015 on reducing Carbon emissions. (Right now, USA is considering to leave, Syria did not join because they were busy in their civil wars, while Nicaragua wanted stricter control by requiring punishment if countries fail to meet their emission reduction goals (rather than make it voluntary). Since this did not occur, Nicaragua did not sign. Even countries like North Korea (isolated) and Iraq (in midst of conflict) signed the agreement. We did get almost all nations to agree on it.
Sadly, as far as I know (I may be wrong on this) the Paris agreement is not vinculative, which means there are no consequences if the countries do not reach their goals. So it's basically a flop. They just wanted to look good in the picture.
Actually it's the reverse. Tropical regions with no winters are the natural spots for life to develop and thrive. That's why the largest biodiversity and populations are in these regions historically. Regions with harsher environments are not conducive (obviously) to life naturally. They need a lot more resources to support a smaller population.Your view is one shared by many but that's just conjecture due to the current state of affairs of each nations. Once that balances out, this view will not be valid anymore as the strange situation in history that allowed these conjectures to form would be gone.
True that many of our current leaders Don'T care (ahem, see what I did there?) But don't mistake that for a nation of unconcerned people, and don't think that other nations have unanamouse support or no blame. Norway, for instance, got fat on oil well before they started to examine whether that was a good thing for the world at large.
While the Great Orange Leader (and the GOP) don't care many large cities do care. Mayors are enacting their own actions even if the federal gov't officially doesn't care.
Yeah I know that not all "gringos" are like that and some local governments are trying to be green, buT that peRson is Undeniably the window froM usa to the world :P
Technically the industrial revolution was a boon for colonial nations but a curse for the colonies. Such "industrialization" needed extraordinarily large amounts of cheap raw materials ans a large enough market to dump them in at their excessive costs (bring materials back to their home countries, manufacturing then sending it back was really costly as expected). So those forced to take up those two roles were the colonies - they had to supply endless amounts of raw material at dirt cheap rates, to the point they couldn't afford food and later they had to buy the finished products at exorbitant prices as the local industry was suppressed or wiped out to prevent competition and local ability to support and improve itself. Thats why nowadays developing countries want the developed countries to pay for cleaning up the climate change mess - to which they are still contributing and benefiting from the most. You break it, you buy it.
Although entirely correct, it's tragic that the potential for large long term economic losses in wealthy (Western) countries is emphasized essentially as _the_ motivation to counteract climate change, not solidarity with poor countries and communities that have played a negligible role in the creation of the problem. However much you sympathize with them, the current economic framework ultimately dictates the actions undertaken. The capitalist obsession with profit and capital gains has been and still is the main driving force of climate change. This is why, as far as I'm concerned, supporting overtly capitalist green parties and initiatives is ultimately doing the world a disservice; capitalism needs to be treated as a cause of climate change, not a neutral economic framework under which we must find a solution.
Yep this is why regulation is going to have to be part of the solution the idea of free market capitalism is inherently flawed as it assumes people are capable of rational unbiased and objective long term planing which research has shown is anything but the case. Our society needs to be founded on more than just money as humans aren't built to work that way and our physiology and psychology are more or less still adapted to help us survive as hunter gathers. The problem I see is that people are still making judgments based on wishful thinking and how they want or think the world works rather than using evidence to make better choices. Capitalism like Communism doesn't work because humans have innate biases that policy makers do not want to acknowledge or take into account.
Moralizing a solution has never worked in the face of corporate greed. Whaling didn't end because whalers suddenly felt bad for the whales. Whaling ended when fossil fuels proved much cheaper to provide than whale oil. Cap & trade harnesses corporate greed to seek solutions. Currently no one is on the hook for their carbon emissions. Cap & trade will focus some attention on how to make money by doing stuff with less carbon emission or figuring out how to suck excess carbon out of the atmosphere. But, of course, it will take a steely-eyed politician to enact cap & trade against their corporate masters' wishes.
Eric Augusto NO, they can! They don't want to, and don't understand climate science. We have to take the offenders to heel, and there is very little that indie media can do. The ones who need to pay the most, are the liars. Set that up, and see how fast a carbon tax is PREPARED.. people are DYING TODAY..
Rob Wisdom well if it a matter of can or not they can But it will means slowing economic growth And believe me nobody would want that until they can call themselves a developed nations
Blert Shabani if that the case than all the countries have done it Its just their carbon emission is just still too big, if they want to reduce emission It means they would have to go for the more expensive alternatives or sloeing their growth Which from economic point of view, is inefficient It sounds like the paris treaty is a good enough effort, the simplest thing to do is the richer country going to help the developing ones And when they reach the "developed" stage They start working on environment friendly alternatives
I chose Georaphy as a subject in high school. My teacher said the words, when a country invest in green energy, the whole world gets the profit. But the economy of the land who invests will decline. And most countries will not pay that damage in their economy. (Sorry for my bad English, I'm Dutch :) )
"Nations that have more stand to lose more" - Err, no. Climate change is expected to inordinately affect poor countries, not rich ones. Partly cos the rich ones already have well-developed infrastructure and disaster management processes that mean that they'll be able to adapt to climate change a lot more readily than poor ones. The principle that developed ones pay a larger share of the cost is an ethical one, not one borne from self-interest.
As I said in reply to the comment above, how? Farmers peoduce a significant portion of emissions and regulating farmers worldwide would be almost impossible.
Who? The ones that sell it and all factories that uses it! And the government that still encourage the selling and using it, but from their own pokets! We already pay too much taxes, including for breathing and even existing...
3:40 "Nations that have more stand to lose more from climate change." Really? I would think that nations that have more would be better able to adapt to the effects of climate change. If it gets too hot (which it's doing right now), I can afford to move north (which I'm thinking of doing). If I get hit by a major hurricane (in Houston where I am), I have insurance and can afford to rebuild (but I'm really thinking of moving north away from the heat and hurricanes).
The more you have, the more you can lose. A fishing village on the coast can much more easily deal with rising oceans than Miami can. Your insurance can only protect you until the companies start filing for bankruptcy. The CEOs will still walk away with millions so they don't care if your house is wrecked and all their employees lose their jobs.
When in the past I was constantly breaking something but stoped breaking it, I still have to pay for the damage I did. Nobody would say to a judge "Yes, I was walking around in the city throwing bricks into windows, but right now I'm not doing it. So I shouldn't pay for anything." So it shouldn't be relevant at all that right now developed contries are less responsible for the current emmision of CO². The only thing that matters is who emmited how much over all. And we are only able to help the poor countries financially because we polluted our planet in the first place.
About that developing nations getting help?? That was just for show, in terms of researchers and coming up of those ideas yeas it was your country and all developed nations, helping developing by developed countries was just a theory although some developed countries are providing support but with extra super high profit. Second developed nations are polluting earth and producing emission more than developing nations. So in conclusion stop helping us but first fix your problem, if u wish to let others change then first change your country and finally remember having better development, technology doesn't make your country better.
I'm not sure why, but it sounds like you misunderstood my point. It was that developed countries made most of the damage (no matter who is doing more damage right now), so developed countries should pay the most. "some developed countries are providing support but with extra super high profit" That's also an interesting point. Investments in developed countries are not always with good will as intention. I think we should calculate who is producing the CO² emissions in another way. When something is produced in country A and then is shipped to country B where it's consumed, then country B should be responsible for the CO² emissions that happen in country A. For example when people in rich countries are eating way too much meat, which comes from cattle that are fed with soy for which the rain forest in South America was burned down, then the people who eat the meat are responsible for those CO² emissions and not the people in South America. "Your country produces way higher emissions than most of the developing countries combined" What country are you assuming I'm coming from? I didn't write anything about that. I'm from Germany. At least from the data shown in the video, right now Germany is definitely not producing more CO² emissions than all of the developing countries combined. Right now that would be even wrong for the United States. Of course, as I wrote, it matters less who is emitting how much today and more who was emitting how much overall and it could also look different if you calculate it in the way I described above. But this still is a global problem, so we should look for a global solution. That it's a global problem gets pretty obvious with those products that are produced in country A and then are shipped to country B. The cause and the results of the problem ate both globally. So I think we shouldn't just look at our own country and what we could change at home. But it's also important that when we look at other countries we shouldn't blame them for something we did the same way in the past. Instead, we should help them to lower their emission just without any blaming.
Yeah right help developing countries, tell me how is Germany helping India, China and even South Africa. Googling and having few other materials is not just enough to explain and discussing such topic in just a few minutes isn't giving justice to topic and developing countries. This kind of topic is such that needs to be explained in detailed and then create awareness.
Where did I claim that Germany is actually doing it right now (in a sufficient and correct way)? I only wrote what should happen, not what actually is happening. "to explain and discussing such topic in just a few minutes" I was never trying to do that. My point was that the argument in the video that developed countries are not the main producers of CO² anymore doesn't count as long as they are responsible for most of the CO² that is in the atmosphere right now. Of course, development aid is a complex topic, but that doesn't mean that you either have the option to write a whole essay about it or just don't mention it at all, while you're not allowed to mention it while talking about something else.
Developed nation developed by polluting the climate and now developing nation like my nation doing same, it ain't gonna favour any of us. Since we all bear the burden of developed nation polluting climate now since they are developed it's their duty to help those developing nation to find a solution and help them.
The prominent sources of CO2 emission should be curbed first; It doesn't matter if its from developed or developing countries. Though china seems to contribute the highest, their industrial sector that emits most of their CO2, makes products almost for the whole world and guess who tops in consumerism!
Good episode, but you shouldn't see nations as singular units. I bet the differences within nations (rich/poor) are much starker than those between nations. If we answer the question 'who should pay to fix climate change' with 'the rich nations', then the onus falls on taxpayers, instead of on the corporations who are actually the biggest polluters (and who make the most money doing so).
We were already doomed with or without climate changes. Humans have changed the nature, something that no other organism did. Even in some million years or so humans may be extinct from earth, true fact. Natural disasters and mass extinctions have took over so many times and every time our planet has changed. Whether it's a meteor or a volcano. But still, over these extinctions some animals survived. They survived and evolved. Human changed the environment but after the next mass extinction the nature will slowly recover. Without humans. Nature don't need any help. And still some animals may survive after that too. Some small animals like mouse will borrow underground to survive. It may take a billion years but the planet will recover on it's own. And life will still be existing until the very end of the planet likely due to red giant sun. Extinctions happened and will happen this is nothing new. Planet changed and will change this is nothing new. And with these changes life will always survive in some form or the other. Yes, we are doomed. But the planet isn't. My point is that Life uh... Finds a way.
Looking at global problems in the context of "nation states" is hugely problematic. The world needs to unite as one and get over this whole zero-sum approach of competition among "countries". Climate change is everyone's problem.
I think that there are a lot of factors to climate change that could be differentiated such as emmission from factories , vehicles, impacts on deforestation, etc. These factors led to each countries having the possibility to contribute in different ways to the problem itself, rather than differentiating between the developing and developed states.
Hot Mess - Furthermore, developed countries who started this situation have had tens to hundreds of years to earn interest and profit on the money they made polluting the planet. It's time they gave back.
I think fossil fuel companies should pay to fix this mess. It was one thing when people didn't know what burning fossil fuels did to the environment, but now that we know, the companies that continue to sell fuels are the direct source of the problem. Instead of helping to fix it and take one for the team by risking going bankrupt, they have decided to try and make as much cash as possible before they disappear.
China manufacturers everything for everybody. It's expected that they'll cause a lot of pollution. Then they have 1.4 billion in population. So does India. Per capita and historic pollution is negligible.
If you come to look around the United States then you will be surprised how clean everything is, and how many people have no job, and those with a job earn less than their parents and grandparents did. You will have a hard time squeezing money out of people in those circumstances.
Tech Gravity, well, yeah, that's why we put it all by itself on something stuck out into the ocean, so it can be our token garbage heap that we can scapegoat for all our problems! 😲
you have to look at emisions per capita, the US produces almost the same amount as india having less than a third of indias population, is estimated that the average US citizen(europe is not far behind) consumes 12 times more electricity than the average person in a country like india or china and that electricity has to be produce, not to mention car ownership and use. in the end, the only hot mess is the interpretation of the data in this video
Everyone needs to pay and work together. Will people smarten up and realize just how serious global warming is. Earth is going to be hell if we don't smarten up.
If the world's wealthiest 10% of people lived like average Europeans then CO2 emissions would fall by 1/3. In the UK 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of the population and more than 50% do not fly at all. It is not countries that we need to focus our attention on but the richest in every country.
One effect of the shift from fossil fuels, that isn't explicitly mentioned in this video--and possibly the biggest factor in the US and developed world's inaction/hesitancy (aside from direct individual interests)--is the changes it will cause in the economy. Prices for common goods and services will rise, and domestic economies will take a hit before they adjust, and new infrastructure is put in place for whatever the next energy-driven economy will look like. . . I think a lot of the resistance to the new energy economy comes from fossil fuel companies capitalizing off of the conservative's fear of a downturn in the economy.
Im actually becoming less convinced about this whole issue. as time goes i become more and more tempted to abandon the whole carbon is the demon thing. The older i get the less idealistic i become. I begin to be more positive about paying more expensive later because the smaller amount doesnt exist for us. Forget about math, we need to keep the wheel turning.
Could be a good idea, (they may already be doing this but not sure) one worry maybe, if one country gives under there quoted gdp % like with what has been happening with NATO, countries around may follow suite as they don't want to have to be spending relitively more, this could cause a slippery slope. Another could be, attacks at other countries for not meeting there goals and cause international strife and maybe countries pulling out of that acord. Just a thought it would be much more manageable to get to the 30 trillion goal if they did do your GDP solution
Here's the thing though, GDP is an arbitrary measurement of wealth. It may not accurately represent how rich the country is, and beyond that, it's a flow, not an asset. If we go by this rule, then we don't take into account variables such as debt ratio, which would be a TERRIBLE idea IMO.
Charles Bosse it is, it just has a lot of people which ends up making a huge Gdp but the fact is that an average Chinese is 3 times poorer than an average American
1) if greenhouse gases emissions are not done by developing countries US and EU are 2,3 in the list aren't they developed and prosperous 2)it accounts for all green house gases released China and india's population are higher than that of US and european union 3)well if you know how this fund works is it helps countries to buy subsidised tech for developing renewable sources of energy which means its like a trade where poor countries buy tech fom prosperous countries which leads to trade defecit and intern harms the economy of developing countries funds are not donated so rich countries are not helping its trade 4)its like the developed country are blaming developing countries for their actions
And... we are doomed because or economies will continue to run on debt, and no one will pay, even if deciders can afford to, unless themselves themselves want to save their lives, or benefit from it directly in terms of power. Also I think every country should tune their social services (if there are any) to rewards more those who are making fewer children...
The developed countries have maybe saved the most but that doesn't necessarily mean that the industries in these countries have contributed as much and did their share. Often it has been the private citizen who is climate-aware and did so on a voluntary base. But if the developed countries would be made to pay it is most likely that the same private citizen/tax payer in those countries will be on the paying end there as industries are rarely made to pay for their polution. Thus these people will remain poor and industries will keep enriching themselves. So instead of only talking about which countries pay, we also need to discuss who actually will pay.
It should be done on a three layered system, on a worldwide scale & proportionally to their level of progress/contamination(carbon footprint). : Individuals=1%, divided by the inhabitants= $5 Billion= aprox. $0.77US Dls per world inhabitant. This could be scaled further by level of income(greater income creates a larger carbon footprint). Countries= 9%, all countries & proportionately to # of cars & livestock= $45 Billion. Industries= These should pay 90%= $450 Billion, because these are the main polluters who make products for the whole world. . If the U.S. was able to give more than a Trillion dollars in tax cut to the ultra rich & transnational corporations, that alone is double the amount needed to get started, but greed will overcome to do nothing.
Which of the references is the source for the costs of 500B$ vs. 32T$ example? And does anyone know, how high these costs are esrimated by studies sceptically towards climate change (which are probably funded by Shell etc., but nvm)
We all should pay to fix it... It's funny when Nation like US dictate other saying Asian nation must fix it... So the developed ones who succeed with burning fuel and destroying climate the most... The developed nations must not just give money but help with technology to developing nation yo cut carbon emission
I was really surprised there was no mention that rich countries have higher emissions than poor countries do per capita. This felt like a biased presentation as a result.
dont worry indian govt is listening thats why in last few month india has invest in three renewable project of 30000 mw in gujrat kutch,8000mw in rajasthan,1500 mw in madhyapradesh.
😕First we should consider past. with out past there is no present nor features. 😏And don't escape from the fact that you to have some share in it. 😒Don't blame on other developing countries.🤔 If u see we are cleaning the trash that u made 😑.what a shame for developled countries try to escape for a crime by saying other. And don't even mention us poor countries. For ur note still my country emit's for more less greenhouse gas than USA.😕 One per capita base.😎
I just want to point out how less India has been a part of it in a grand scale .. Even with almost same population as china I am glad my country had taken steps to reduce it ..and since a couple years millions have been invested in solar power and mre efficient ways to furthur reduce our carbon footprint .. We have a lot of issues like poverty and illiteracy but finally I am seeing change in how things are being done in our country .. Mind you poverty does not always mean unhappy people in India..
At the end of the day economic benefit will always be top over climatic benefit. Whatever gets designed will always have to be cheaper to use than the previous technology to be considered. Small island nations will likely see more benefit from renewables than the larger countries because available land for energy production is limited, and their resources they can exchange for other fuels are also limited. It's hard to convince a nation that sits on so much cheap energy and resources to innovate to less impacting means of energy production. Something has to happen first that will adversely affect their economy to make them want to innovate. Such as greenhouse effects on agriculture, damage to vital water courses, and a reduced health of a human workforce. This is the reason why countries like China are starting to innovate on a massive scale, because their 'catch up & overtake' mentality required a huge consumption of energy. In Asia now, a huge concern is water quality and management. Almost every biproduct of production and waste product of consumption goes directly into major water courses, destroying animal and plant life, and spreading disease amongst the populations who directly rely on these water courses for bathing, washing and drinking. It's a shame that politics plays such a major role in slowing such innovations.
So USA emits 3 time more than India while India have 4 time more population than USA, but American dare to accuse Indian of pollution lol
hey daddy That being said though we(Indians) have a lot of natural renewable resources that we haven't tapped into yet. I mean think about it, we have sufficient sunlight, long coasts for tidal energy investment, wind energy investments and we do have enough nuclear energy. All of that combined can make us independent of traditional resources like coal or Petroleum products. Our Public transport can easily be 100% electric. Its just that it requires investment which governments don't make and spend it on Military (we're at 4th). Scams are huge too, and with 50% less scams, India can easily be among the lowest polluting countries
As if India give 2 fucks
Yeah per capita we are much cleaner than say America. China has a lot of pollution but per capita its nowhere near America. I say who should pay more depends on who exploited it more and benefited more. So that means UK, Germany, France, USA and Russia.
I would guess that the people in India and China with the equivalent lifestyle as Americans pollute at least at an equivalent level.
Zon bee,except the people in those countries with the equivalent life style of an American is very small...what matters is the gross pollution
There is only one rich nation that is refusing to help pay. Most developing nations are already doing more than the USA, at a government level.
yes, but they are also the ones building all of the biggest solar farms in the world, and China itself is adding double the amount of renewable of the USA: www.originenergy.com.au/blog/lifestyle/5-largest-solar-farms-in-the-world.html (Developping nations leads in this area)
www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/ (India alone is planning to add almost as much as the US)
Australia too. What other nations?
If you think money will change the natural order of the planet you have a terrible grasp of geography amongst many, many other things
It's misleading to describe fossil fuel emissions in terms of country output. What matters is per capita output and developed nations on a per capita basis are by far the biggest producers of fossil fuel emmisions, not to mention the fact that they consume many of the products produced in developing nations. That is the bottom line.
CO2 Emissions per capita 2016
Canada = 18.62 tons per capita
USA = 15.56 tons per capita
Japan = 9.68 tons per capita
China = 7.45 tons per capita
UK = 5.59 tons per capita
Indonesia = 2.03 tons per capita
India = 1.92 tons per capita
edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9
CO2 Emissions per capita 2015
USA = 15.53 tons per capita
Canada = 15.32 tons per capita
Japan = 8.99 tons per capita
China = 6.59 tons per capita
UK = 5.99 tons per capita
Indonesia = 1.72 tons per capita
India = 1.58 tons per capita
www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W7HbHmgzaUk
CO2 Emissions per capita 2014
USA = 16.5 tons per capita
Canada = 15.1 tons per capita
Japan = 9.5 tons per capita
China = 7.5 tons per capita
UK = 6.5 tons per capita
Indoensia = 1.8 tons per capita
India = 1.7 tons per capita
data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc?year_high_desc=false
I forgot hurricanes only get stronger if your c02 to population average is high. Otherwise you are only hit with very weak storms.
Australia is one of the worst per capita and we could be running the country and others with renewable easily.
ADerpyReality
Australian power prices are among the highest in the world, every time you install a renewable source you add to that bill!
The 15 billion in subsidies we have spent is coming out of the working/middle class pockets, whilst the rich are all investing in renewables, ask yourself why?
Wind turbines are killing birds at a horrendous rate, research is just coming to light regarding worms, insects & small animals leaving area’s where wind farms are built.
I’m all for renewables, but once again we are being rushed into something that seems to be doing more harm than good, and making some poorer and some richer.
Because FF doesn't kill more.
Where's your opposition to plastic, waste, over fishing/hunting, arms trade...ect.
Not even a footnote about the US leaving the Paris agreement? Really?
Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez i too was thinking the same
The Paris agreement will make no difference to the planet anyway, you can't bribe the earth to prematurely reverse its natural cycle
Indian Govt is nowadays focussing more on production of energy using Non renewable sources. Several tenders for building coal power plants was scrapped and these funds are being used to build solar power plants.
Molten Lava developing countries like India and China care more about the environment and per capita emissions is a lot lower than western nations. yet somehow some westerners dare to accuse developing countries as the main contributors of global emission lol.
You mean renewable resources
*renewable
Batman But they're focussing on cleaner coal plants, which is pretty good considering China's historical use of coal.
Switching to cleaner coal could drop it's emissions by half
solar is renewable
Sadly, people don't see the big problems until there is one iconic event that reflects said problem. Gradually getting closer to hell itself simply doesn't get enough attention because it's just harder to see. When powerful people think of climate change they think of some dumb ice chunks melting somewhere very far from home and maybe some animals they've never seen in real life going extinct. Tornados? Tsunamis? Heat waves and colder winters? No biggie, those have been on the news forever, nothing new, won't happen to me. "Decade" is a big word, I just care about the million dollars our company is getting next week. They don't think of their family dying or their economy collapsing because we're not good at seeing ahead until it's in our face. As a professional procrastinator for everything I can testify this.
If nobody does anything to take action and kickstart the change, I'm pretty scared of what that eye-opening event will be. Just imagine.
A major iconic event.... such as the the ice age(s)?
"Climate Change may cost lives? Who cares about that when there is money to be made!" -Some CEO
“Turning millions of tons of food into biofuels is currently costing millions of lives. But who cares about that when “going green” makes me feel special!”
- some environmentalist
Source?
I mean, I get your logic. People in the world are dying of hunger and we do turn food into biofuel. Unfortunately there is no profit incentive in getting food to poor people. There are also logistical challenges in getting food to more remote places. Not that that should excuse us for not doing it but again, no profit incentive. Minute Brain Person commented below that as long as profit is the main motivation we will not have a society that values human lives.
The truth is that capitalism drives climate change, and as long as we cling to that system, the destruction will be unstoppable.
Alex Schmidt doesn't biofuel mean the crap not the food?
Calling developing countries like India, China and Brazil "POOR" is simply ignorant! The right term for these giants is 'NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS'!
rag 06 that is so true! I hate people who say that India, China, and Brazil are poor! They don’t know anything but just pretend like they k ow everything but they DON’T!
USA's per capita carbon emission is 10 times more than India
rag 06 there people are poor and in poverty but there budget is big
Hello Boy
Are you dumb? You can't compare poverty in the West and the rest of the world that 21 percent is actually people actually suffering from lack of shelter food and water! If you want u.k standards for Indian poverty it would be a lot higher
rag 06
It's not ignorant they are poor nations
The companies who cause the emissions should pay including if it's government owned. That used to be the thought, until oil companies bought out newspapers and lobbied government. To make it there problem now companies buy out newspapers to complain how the government is interfering to much even though it was them who caused this situation. It's mind-bogglingly annoying
xmr7 pt95 well yeah it would be included in the cost of the item of course
I sort of agree, but then there's a big problem with implementation. For example, despite CFC's being flatly illegal, they are still used at detectable levels. With so much CO2 and methane already in our atmosphere, and so many natural sources, tracking down violators would be nearly impossible. In addition, it would add major regulatory hurtles to development and to small farmers throughout the world.
It could be built into the price as a carbon tax but your right that the problem is that the people who have caused this mess have spent billions on trying to lie cheat steal and bribe their way out of paying their interest.
I have had this thought that maybe we should treat the energy made by fossil fuels as a loan with a interest payment tax but I don't know how practical such a thought would be if it is even feasible at all.
It was about time a channel like this is made.
It's taken directly from PBS. Do you have a TV? The info is out there if people would turn off Fox, the Kardashians and their smartphones.
I agree, we need this nonsense available for criticism and ridicule
I want to make a joke about who would pay if we _don't_ fix climate change, but the people who would lose the most are the ones who can spare the least. The tropics are a terrible place to build a civilization...
The best answer is, of course, that everyone should work together and save the world. But we can hardly get a dozen acquaintances working together, so getting hundreds of different nations (many of whom view one another as mortal enemies) seems unlikely.
Even though I'm not really confident about individuals themselves, I believe in humanity as a whole. From two world wars, plagues and almost being extinct in the beginning of our history, humanity always prospered. We'll rise to the challenge. But, of course, being confident isn't enough. We have to do something. So please don't forget to turn off the lights when you leave the room ;)
Well, almost every nation agreed to the Paris Agreement of 2015 on reducing Carbon emissions. (Right now, USA is considering to leave, Syria did not join because they were busy in their civil wars, while Nicaragua wanted stricter control by requiring punishment if countries fail to meet their emission reduction goals (rather than make it voluntary). Since this did not occur, Nicaragua did not sign. Even countries like North Korea (isolated) and Iraq (in midst of conflict) signed the agreement. We did get almost all nations to agree on it.
Sadly, as far as I know (I may be wrong on this) the Paris agreement is not vinculative, which means there are no consequences if the countries do not reach their goals. So it's basically a flop. They just wanted to look good in the picture.
Actually it's the reverse. Tropical regions with no winters are the natural spots for life to develop and thrive. That's why the largest biodiversity and populations are in these regions historically. Regions with harsher environments are not conducive (obviously) to life naturally. They need a lot more resources to support a smaller population.Your view is one shared by many but that's just conjecture due to the current state of affairs of each nations.
Once that balances out, this view will not be valid anymore as the strange situation in history that allowed these conjectures to form would be gone.
Do elaborates why tropics suck for civilisation
why did you show india's picture on the pic ? while its at the end of the list for burning fossil fuels ? shameful .
4:00 I'm sure 'MERICA doesn't care, quitting Paris agreement proves it.
True that many of our current leaders Don'T care (ahem, see what I did there?) But don't mistake that for a nation of unconcerned people, and don't think that other nations have unanamouse support or no blame. Norway, for instance, got fat on oil well before they started to examine whether that was a good thing for the world at large.
While the Great Orange Leader (and the GOP) don't care many large cities do care. Mayors are enacting their own actions even if the federal gov't officially doesn't care.
Yeah I know that not all "gringos" are like that and some local governments are trying to be green, buT that peRson is Undeniably the window froM usa to the world :P
Charles Bosse what did you dided there?
But you do care so give up your car and live in the woods
Technically the industrial revolution was a boon for colonial nations but a curse for the colonies. Such "industrialization" needed extraordinarily large amounts of cheap raw materials ans a large enough market to dump them in at their excessive costs (bring materials back to their home countries, manufacturing then sending it back was really costly as expected).
So those forced to take up those two roles were the colonies - they had to supply endless amounts of raw material at dirt cheap rates, to the point they couldn't afford food and later they had to buy the finished products at exorbitant prices as the local industry was suppressed or wiped out to prevent competition and local ability to support and improve itself.
Thats why nowadays developing countries want the developed countries to pay for cleaning up the climate change mess - to which they are still contributing and benefiting from the most. You break it, you buy it.
Although entirely correct, it's tragic that the potential for large long term economic losses in wealthy (Western) countries is emphasized essentially as _the_ motivation to counteract climate change, not solidarity with poor countries and communities that have played a negligible role in the creation of the problem. However much you sympathize with them, the current economic framework ultimately dictates the actions undertaken. The capitalist obsession with profit and capital gains has been and still is the main driving force of climate change. This is why, as far as I'm concerned, supporting overtly capitalist green parties and initiatives is ultimately doing the world a disservice; capitalism needs to be treated as a cause of climate change, not a neutral economic framework under which we must find a solution.
Such a good comment! I agree completely
Yep this is why regulation is going to have to be part of the solution the idea of free market capitalism is inherently flawed as it assumes people are capable of rational unbiased and objective long term planing which research has shown is anything but the case. Our society needs to be founded on more than just money as humans aren't built to work that way and our physiology and psychology are more or less still adapted to help us survive as hunter gathers.
The problem I see is that people are still making judgments based on wishful thinking and how they want or think the world works rather than using evidence to make better choices. Capitalism like Communism doesn't work because humans have innate biases that policy makers do not want to acknowledge or take into account.
Moralizing a solution has never worked in the face of corporate greed. Whaling didn't end because whalers suddenly felt bad for the whales. Whaling ended when fossil fuels proved much cheaper to provide than whale oil.
Cap & trade harnesses corporate greed to seek solutions. Currently no one is on the hook for their carbon emissions. Cap & trade will focus some attention on how to make money by doing stuff with less carbon emission or figuring out how to suck excess carbon out of the atmosphere.
But, of course, it will take a steely-eyed politician to enact cap & trade against their corporate masters' wishes.
Everyone should b paying already..
Ideally yes
But not all country can afford it as stated in video
Eric Augusto NO, they can! They don't want to, and don't understand climate science. We have to take the offenders to heel, and there is very little that indie media can do.
The ones who need to pay the most, are the liars. Set that up, and see how fast a carbon tax is PREPARED.. people are DYING TODAY..
Eric Augusto relative to country economy and size..
Rob Wisdom well if it a matter of can or not they can
But it will means slowing economic growth
And believe me nobody would want that until they can call themselves a developed nations
Blert Shabani if that the case than all the countries have done it
Its just their carbon emission is just still too big, if they want to reduce emission
It means they would have to go for the more expensive alternatives or sloeing their growth
Which from economic point of view, is inefficient
It sounds like the paris treaty is a good enough effort, the simplest thing to do is the richer country going to help the developing ones
And when they reach the "developed" stage
They start working on environment friendly alternatives
Why don't you consider carbon emmission per citizen of a country rather than country's usage?
because their logic is bad and their interpretation of the data worse....in short they dont know what they are talking about.
I chose Georaphy as a subject in high school. My teacher said the words, when a country invest in green energy, the whole world gets the profit. But the economy of the land who invests will decline. And most countries will not pay that damage in their economy. (Sorry for my bad English, I'm Dutch :) )
Its fine
You have a good point
"Nations that have more stand to lose more" - Err, no. Climate change is expected to inordinately affect poor countries, not rich ones. Partly cos the rich ones already have well-developed infrastructure and disaster management processes that mean that they'll be able to adapt to climate change a lot more readily than poor ones. The principle that developed ones pay a larger share of the cost is an ethical one, not one borne from self-interest.
Shhhhhh!
At least not India...we may be from different country but our earth is one ....so we should think equally
I think oil companies should pay it is there fault we are stuck on the putrollium tit
As I said in reply to the comment above, how? Farmers peoduce a significant portion of emissions and regulating farmers worldwide would be almost impossible.
Actually solar all the way bro EAD BRO
Mathieu Levert it's like you carfully watched the video and considered all the implications. Thank you for your considered and expert opinion.
/S
Just bcs oil is identical to burning, its not oil fault alone
I mean, oil company shouldnt have burn that many oil
Its their product ffs
Why is everyone crazy for co2 when water vapor traps more heat?
true!!! its not often talked about. BTW global flooding is increasing in drought cycles!!!!!! look at south east asia.
Who? The ones that sell it and all factories that uses it! And the government that still encourage the selling and using it, but from their own pokets!
We already pay too much taxes, including for breathing and even existing...
How in earth could there be climate change, if the world is flat?
the sun is falling down due to the atmosphere being thicker
My greenhouse still works on flat land, so it's irrelevant.
3:40 "Nations that have more stand to lose more from climate change." Really? I would think that nations that have more would be better able to adapt to the effects of climate change. If it gets too hot (which it's doing right now), I can afford to move north (which I'm thinking of doing). If I get hit by a major hurricane (in Houston where I am), I have insurance and can afford to rebuild (but I'm really thinking of moving north away from the heat and hurricanes).
The more you have, the more you can lose. A fishing village on the coast can much more easily deal with rising oceans than Miami can. Your insurance can only protect you until the companies start filing for bankruptcy. The CEOs will still walk away with millions so they don't care if your house is wrecked and all their employees lose their jobs.
When in the past I was constantly breaking something but stoped breaking it, I still have to pay for the damage I did. Nobody would say to a judge "Yes, I was walking around in the city throwing bricks into windows, but right now I'm not doing it. So I shouldn't pay for anything."
So it shouldn't be relevant at all that right now developed contries are less responsible for the current emmision of CO². The only thing that matters is who emmited how much over all. And we are only able to help the poor countries financially because we polluted our planet in the first place.
About that developing nations getting help?? That was just for show, in terms of researchers and coming up of those ideas yeas it was your country and all developed nations, helping developing by developed countries was just a theory although some developed countries are providing support but with extra super high profit. Second developed nations are polluting earth and producing emission more than developing nations. So in conclusion stop helping us but first fix your problem, if u wish to let others change then first change your country and finally remember having better development, technology doesn't make your country better.
And about how much and who of yours study well and come. Your country produces way higher emissions than most of the developing countries combined
I'm not sure why, but it sounds like you misunderstood my point. It was that developed countries made most of the damage (no matter who is doing more damage right now), so developed countries should pay the most.
"some developed countries are providing support but with extra super high profit"
That's also an interesting point. Investments in developed countries are not always with good will as intention.
I think we should calculate who is producing the CO² emissions in another way. When something is produced in country A and then is shipped to country B where it's consumed, then country B should be responsible for the CO² emissions that happen in country A. For example when people in rich countries are eating way too much meat, which comes from cattle that are fed with soy for which the rain forest in South America was burned down, then the people who eat the meat are responsible for those CO² emissions and not the people in South America.
"Your country produces way higher emissions than most of the developing countries combined"
What country are you assuming I'm coming from? I didn't write anything about that. I'm from Germany.
At least from the data shown in the video, right now Germany is definitely not producing more CO² emissions than all of the developing countries combined. Right now that would be even wrong for the United States.
Of course, as I wrote, it matters less who is emitting how much today and more who was emitting how much overall and it could also look different if you calculate it in the way I described above.
But this still is a global problem, so we should look for a global solution. That it's a global problem gets pretty obvious with those products that are produced in country A and then are shipped to country B. The cause and the results of the problem ate both globally.
So I think we shouldn't just look at our own country and what we could change at home. But it's also important that when we look at other countries we shouldn't blame them for something we did the same way in the past. Instead, we should help them to lower their emission just without any blaming.
Yeah right help developing countries, tell me how is Germany helping India, China and even South Africa. Googling and having few other materials is not just enough to explain and discussing such topic in just a few minutes isn't giving justice to topic and developing countries. This kind of topic is such that needs to be explained in detailed and then create awareness.
Where did I claim that Germany is actually doing it right now (in a sufficient and correct way)?
I only wrote what should happen, not what actually is happening.
"to explain and discussing such topic in just a few minutes"
I was never trying to do that. My point was that the argument in the video that developed countries are not the main producers of CO² anymore doesn't count as long as they are responsible for most of the CO² that is in the atmosphere right now. Of course, development aid is a complex topic, but that doesn't mean that you either have the option to write a whole essay about it or just don't mention it at all, while you're not allowed to mention it while talking about something else.
Developed nation developed by polluting the climate and now developing nation like my nation doing same, it ain't gonna favour any of us. Since we all bear the burden of developed nation polluting climate now since they are developed it's their duty to help those developing nation to find a solution and help them.
The prominent sources of CO2 emission should be curbed first; It doesn't matter if its from developed or developing countries.
Though china seems to contribute the highest, their industrial sector that emits most of their CO2, makes products almost for the whole world and guess who tops in consumerism!
3:20 No YOU do the math,
I'm here for watching NOT doing my HOMEWORK
Good episode, but you shouldn't see nations as singular units. I bet the differences within nations (rich/poor) are much starker than those between nations. If we answer the question 'who should pay to fix climate change' with 'the rich nations', then the onus falls on taxpayers, instead of on the corporations who are actually the biggest polluters (and who make the most money doing so).
We're doomed.
If world going to die you can do anything with me 5 minutes before apocalypse
We were already doomed with or without climate changes. Humans have changed the nature, something that no other organism did. Even in some million years or so humans may be extinct from earth, true fact. Natural disasters and mass extinctions have took over so many times and every time our planet has changed. Whether it's a meteor or a volcano. But still, over these extinctions some animals survived. They survived and evolved. Human changed the environment but after the next mass extinction the nature will slowly recover. Without humans. Nature don't need any help. And still some animals may survive after that too. Some small animals like mouse will borrow underground to survive. It may take a billion years but the planet will recover on it's own. And life will still be existing until the very end of the planet likely due to red giant sun. Extinctions happened and will happen this is nothing new. Planet changed and will change this is nothing new. And with these changes life will always survive in some form or the other. Yes, we are doomed. But the planet isn't. My point is that Life uh... Finds a way.
Why should only these countries be paying??? Every country in the world should pay
Who should pay?Everyone. It's the freaking planet!
"Common but differentiated responsibilities"
I'd say, us all.
Thank you HM!!! I love your channel!!
"No one wants to be the country responsible for screwing things up for everybody."
America: "Hold my beer."
Rich countries should hold the most responsibility. Period.
Looking at global problems in the context of "nation states" is hugely problematic. The world needs to unite as one and get over this whole zero-sum approach of competition among "countries". Climate change is everyone's problem.
Don't worry Thanos is coming to earth.....😊 😊 😊
A planet that has been warming and cooling for millennia and there are people that think money will change anything 🤦🏻♂️
So, you want to solve this with.... money?! What are you going to do, convincing ice to come back by planting € or $ bills in the poles?
I think that there are a lot of factors to climate change that could be differentiated such as emmission from factories , vehicles, impacts on deforestation, etc. These factors led to each countries having the possibility to contribute in different ways to the problem itself, rather than differentiating between the developing and developed states.
The major one being that the planet constantly goes through periods of warming and cooling and has done forever
Everybody
Hot Mess - Furthermore, developed countries who started this situation have had tens to hundreds of years to earn interest and profit on the money they made polluting the planet. It's time they gave back.
Who will pay for the profound sense of a foreshortened future inculcated into billions of souls? Brutal.
I think fossil fuel companies should pay to fix this mess. It was one thing when people didn't know what burning fossil fuels did to the environment, but now that we know, the companies that continue to sell fuels are the direct source of the problem. Instead of helping to fix it and take one for the team by risking going bankrupt, they have decided to try and make as much cash as possible before they disappear.
Explain how money will alter the natural order of the planet? 🤦🏻♂️🤣
I did not realize that most of the emissions are from poor nations right now... talk about a hot mess...
Are the United States emissions from individuals in their homes, or from industries producing products to sell around the world?
China manufacturers everything for everybody. It's expected that they'll cause a lot of pollution. Then they have 1.4 billion in population. So does India. Per capita and historic pollution is negligible.
If you come to look around the United States then you will be surprised how clean everything is, and how many people have no job, and those with a job earn less than their parents and grandparents did. You will have a hard time squeezing money out of people in those circumstances.
Tech Gravity, well, yeah, that's why we put it all by itself on something stuck out into the ocean, so it can be our token garbage heap that we can scapegoat for all our problems! 😲
you have to look at emisions per capita, the US produces almost the same amount as india having less than a third of indias population, is estimated that the average US citizen(europe is not far behind) consumes 12 times more electricity than the average person in a country like india or china and that electricity has to be produce, not to mention car ownership and use.
in the end, the only hot mess is the interpretation of the data in this video
Everyone needs to pay and work together. Will people smarten up and realize just how serious global warming is. Earth is going to be hell if we don't smarten up.
If the world's wealthiest 10% of people lived like average Europeans then CO2 emissions would fall by 1/3.
In the UK 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of the population and more than 50% do not fly at all.
It is not countries that we need to focus our attention on but the richest in every country.
This really do be my earth science homework
I hope we all figure out ways to help.
I also like how it is exposed in "Laudato Si".
4:01 "No one wants to be the country responsible for screwing things up for everybody."
Not so sure about this...
Per Capita carbon emission of USA is 10 times of India's per capita emission
One effect of the shift from fossil fuels, that isn't explicitly mentioned in this video--and possibly the biggest factor in the US and developed world's inaction/hesitancy (aside from direct individual interests)--is the changes it will cause in the economy. Prices for common goods and services will rise, and domestic economies will take a hit before they adjust, and new infrastructure is put in place for whatever the next energy-driven economy will look like. . . I think a lot of the resistance to the new energy economy comes from fossil fuel companies capitalizing off of the conservative's fear of a downturn in the economy.
Thank you for the information.
VERY USEFUL MATERIAL. THANK YOU
Hey lady , you must be really proud of that buns.
All the developed nations specially US and China should pay more.
Nature and humans
China is not developed
Simple answer, the rich countries should pay for it by helping the poor countries develop ulternative energy sources.
Thank you for the information about the environment
problem is the governments in the rich nations are supported by rich people who like take the profit and share the cost...
Yep. All those "black stuff" were game changers in industrial revolution
We can go for thorium power to stop the fuel and coal based energy sector but the oil industry are doing everything to stop it...
Hmm how about a collective global effort of companies and goverments all over the world
I just did the maths and 11biilion people would each have to pay roughly $2730 to reach that $30trillion price :/
Why not just everyone in the world pay a certain percent out of their income?
Im actually becoming less convinced about this whole issue. as time goes i become more and more tempted to abandon the whole carbon is the demon thing.
The older i get the less idealistic i become. I begin to be more positive about paying more expensive later because the smaller amount doesnt exist for us. Forget about math, we need to keep the wheel turning.
It's all smoke in mirrors anyway
AWESOME video but guess what all of them should pay a percentage of their yearly GDP , reply please
Could be a good idea, (they may already be doing this but not sure) one worry maybe, if one country gives under there quoted gdp % like with what has been happening with NATO, countries around may follow suite as they don't want to have to be spending relitively more, this could cause a slippery slope. Another could be, attacks at other countries for not meeting there goals and cause international strife and maybe countries pulling out of that acord. Just a thought it would be much more manageable to get to the 30 trillion goal if they did do your GDP solution
Exactly what I though, 1-2% of every country's GDP could solve Climate Change for sure, but people are stubborn af and don't care about the future...
Here's the thing though, GDP is an arbitrary measurement of wealth. It may not accurately represent how rich the country is, and beyond that, it's a flow, not an asset. If we go by this rule, then we don't take into account variables such as debt ratio, which would be a TERRIBLE idea IMO.
Yeah, I feel like this oversimplies things in the name of fairness. On the other hand, is China really 'developing' still?
Charles Bosse it is, it just has a lot of people which ends up making a huge Gdp but the fact is that an average Chinese is 3 times poorer than an average American
1) if greenhouse gases emissions are not done by developing countries
US and EU are 2,3 in the list aren't they developed and prosperous
2)it accounts for all green house gases released China and india's population are higher than that of US and european union
3)well if you know how this fund works is it helps countries to buy subsidised tech for developing renewable sources of energy which means its like a trade where poor countries buy tech fom prosperous countries which leads to trade defecit and intern harms the economy of developing countries funds are not donated so rich countries are not helping its trade
4)its like the developed country are blaming developing countries for their actions
All county's should contribute
Please mention per capita emission for developed and developing countries
I think the richest countries should pay first, and then the developing countries should pay them back.
And... we are doomed because or economies will continue to run on debt, and no one will pay, even if deciders can afford to, unless themselves themselves want to save their lives, or benefit from it directly in terms of power.
Also I think every country should tune their social services (if there are any) to rewards more those who are making fewer children...
It's too late anyway, nobody will pay and we will continue business as usual until we all die.
Someone call Elon Musk.
Danyal A. 🙄 hope that's a joke
Hmmm... he's been working on Tesla, gigafactories. He's way ahead of everyone on trying to solve the problem.
Yeah, donating to Republicans is helping a lot 🙄
Nice icon man.
shadetreader Republicans want more free Market than democrats, thats why he is donating to them.
As for who will pay? Probably our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.
500 Billion dollars is less the the US army yearly budget
I have a Solution rather than paying trillions just plant billions of trees.😁
The slave of Allah. It's not that easy.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-cool-earth/
The developed countries have maybe saved the most but that doesn't necessarily mean that the industries in these countries have contributed as much and did their share. Often it has been the private citizen who is climate-aware and did so on a voluntary base. But if the developed countries would be made to pay it is most likely that the same private citizen/tax payer in those countries will be on the paying end there as industries are rarely made to pay for their polution. Thus these people will remain poor and industries will keep enriching themselves. So instead of only talking about which countries pay, we also need to discuss who actually will pay.
Us & Eu should pay
I am burning, there is no water, my crops failed,there is no food , my economy is dead
Russia: *Smirks*
It should be done on a three layered system, on a worldwide scale & proportionally to their level of progress/contamination(carbon footprint). :
Individuals=1%, divided by the inhabitants= $5 Billion= aprox. $0.77US Dls per world inhabitant. This could be scaled further by level of income(greater income creates a larger carbon footprint).
Countries= 9%, all countries & proportionately to # of cars & livestock= $45 Billion.
Industries= These should pay 90%= $450 Billion, because these are the main polluters who make products for the whole world.
.
If the U.S. was able to give more than a Trillion dollars in tax cut to the ultra rich & transnational corporations, that alone is double the amount needed to get started, but greed will overcome to do nothing.
Which of the references is the source for the costs of 500B$ vs. 32T$ example?
And does anyone know, how high these costs are esrimated by studies sceptically towards climate change (which are probably funded by Shell etc., but nvm)
So countrys argue that those who consume 70% of world resources should be paying less than others
We all should pay to fix it... It's funny when Nation like US dictate other saying Asian nation must fix it... So the developed ones who succeed with burning fuel and destroying climate the most... The developed nations must not just give money but help with technology to developing nation yo cut carbon emission
Hope you grow fast
Other than youtube, What are the other ways in which you are helping climate change?
I was really surprised there was no mention that rich countries have higher emissions than poor countries do per capita. This felt like a biased presentation as a result.
dont worry indian govt is listening thats why in last few month india has invest in three renewable project of 30000 mw in gujrat kutch,8000mw in rajasthan,1500 mw in madhyapradesh.
Pay? Funny. Noone will be willing to pay we all die.
😕First we should consider past. with out past there is no present nor features. 😏And don't escape from the fact that you to have some share in it. 😒Don't blame on other developing countries.🤔 If u see we are cleaning the trash that u made 😑.what a shame for developled countries try to escape for a crime by saying other. And don't even mention us poor countries. For ur note still my country emit's for more less greenhouse gas than USA.😕 One per capita base.😎
Why are we eroding or soil?
I just want to point out how less India has been a part of it in a grand scale .. Even with almost same population as china I am glad my country had taken steps to reduce it ..and since a couple years millions have been invested in solar power and mre efficient ways to furthur reduce our carbon footprint .. We have a lot of issues like poverty and illiteracy but finally I am seeing change in how things are being done in our country .. Mind you poverty does not always mean unhappy people in India..
"Who should pay to fix climate change."
Why not the countries who can afford to pay but just do worse?👀
What is the increase fossil fuel usage in USA??
At the end of the day economic benefit will always be top over climatic benefit.
Whatever gets designed will always have to be cheaper to use than the previous technology to be considered.
Small island nations will likely see more benefit from renewables than the larger countries because available land for energy production is limited, and their resources they can exchange for other fuels are also limited.
It's hard to convince a nation that sits on so much cheap energy and resources to innovate to less impacting means of energy production. Something has to happen first that will adversely affect their economy to make them want to innovate. Such as greenhouse effects on agriculture, damage to vital water courses, and a reduced health of a human workforce. This is the reason why countries like China are starting to innovate on a massive scale, because their 'catch up & overtake' mentality required a huge consumption of energy.
In Asia now, a huge concern is water quality and management. Almost every biproduct of production and waste product of consumption goes directly into major water courses, destroying animal and plant life, and spreading disease amongst the populations who directly rely on these water courses for bathing, washing and drinking.
It's a shame that politics plays such a major role in slowing such innovations.
Great video
Hi
60% of Global carbon budget has been utilised by US alone..and here u r asking who should pay .
Saving lives in the future or have a bbq in my hummer now..
For country is China.
For “per person” is US.