Considering the west have relied on places like China to produce the products they've consumed then add in that effect. China's production has added to the west's impact at the west's request. The fact is the west can afford to kill their reliance on all foesil fuels and more than likely profit from it, that profit should be used to share benefits with nations that can't afford their targets. Success should be measured on the effect we can have to help in others lives not just our own.
I believe it is ethical to implement a system where we pay for CO2-emmissions. This is because if we do not implement it (for keeping a relationship of awe and love) we do not change the current development and ruthless people are going to keep polluting for personal gain. Additionaly this system does not abolish voluntary contributions. We need to do something, we already have a mass extinction. Also if we make people pay for CO2-emmissions, shouldn't we also support projects that absorb CO2?
A consumer driven economy without an effect on the planet wouldnt have an effect on anything given to us naturally. Therfore a consumer society would consider its effect on the environment and fix the issues before releasing the product to not even cause an effect in the first place. An example is if materials we use for packaging can be composted then we create a circular economy. If the ac we used is powered from the sun and made from materials that are 100% recyclable also the production of it is energy efficient and the energy that is used is renewable then it becomes one with nature. Therfore our consumption is neutral then we need to let people benifit from our development without monarty gain as the first thought. Who knows if everything was thought of in this regard money wouldn't be spent on war or weapons as it would have a negative impact on others lives. Money would be spent on creating endless natural supplies of all we could consume making what we consume benifit our planet and people on it.
No One has to pay. Renewable is actually cheaper. oil had whole century to develop and isn't that good even after that much time. Non renewables have one attractive quality for businesses - control and what you control you can sel. it isn't cheap job creating and of course is super bad for environment. Money is representation of scientific potential in "rich" countries so only they have power to develop renewable power now and fast because time is running out. Good example is germany they are doing quite well and it gives them even more prosperity.
Actually Goverments are irresponsible about problems of Country and of Global . But Citizens they are Good , Peaceful , Helpful and wants to work together and more .
What and absolute nonsense - climate change/global warming is a massive scale focused on power and money. To understand this just follow the money and look for who benefits.
Who should pay for it for climate change? Of course the one who has high Carbon and industry produce in thier country. Those countries mostly hit by climate change are those suffered most but those countries who produced highly carbon level should pay for it for thier cause on climate change. It should imposed this in international
Education is key and we can wait for those developing countries to catch up to developed countries of the west. Carbon taxing based on just emission is not fair for the developing countries and market mechanisms to deal with climate chance is only a short term solution, not a good one. Rich countries paying for something like LED light bulb to get rid of the polluting kerosene lamp in india is a good idea. but thats all it is, an idea. I dont think such a complicated problem can never be monitored and controlled, so the money can go to wherever. Besides its not even a cheap problem as you will need to lay substantial amount of infrastructure, what developed country would agree to pay for that?
I'm really concerned with the latter part of this debate. If we hope to have any chance of uniting on this issue across the political spectrum *cannot afford* this discussion devolving into an anti-consumerism partisan issue. Let's focus on solving this urgent issue and not be opportunistic and latch onto it other issues we feel about.
So what, you prefer to solve a problem by denying the cause? Call a spade a spade. Capitalism is used by the wealthy to pillage the earth for their own benefit. Eat the wealthy, save the planet
Hey folks Demagraphics,solve this imaginary problem.....Math is simple,the developed world and China ,with the exception of the USA is in a demographic/economic death spiral...:)
![[SFM] Risky Recital](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzNkY1_Nk3o/mqdefault.jpg)
Considering the west have relied on places like China to produce the products they've consumed then add in that effect. China's production has added to the west's impact at the west's request.
The fact is the west can afford to kill their reliance on all foesil fuels and more than likely profit from it, that profit should be used to share benefits with nations that can't afford their targets. Success should be measured on the effect we can have to help in others lives not just our own.
Why not tax super rich people and companies who have benefited most from polluting, pay for it?
I believe it is ethical to implement a system where we pay for CO2-emmissions. This is because if we do not implement it (for keeping a relationship of awe and love) we do not change the current development and ruthless people are going to keep polluting for personal gain.
Additionaly this system does not abolish voluntary contributions.
We need to do something, we already have a mass extinction.
Also if we make people pay for CO2-emmissions, shouldn't we also support projects that absorb CO2?
A consumer driven economy without an effect on the planet wouldnt have an effect on anything given to us naturally. Therfore a consumer society would consider its effect on the environment and fix the issues before releasing the product to not even cause an effect in the first place. An example is if materials we use for packaging can be composted then we create a circular economy.
If the ac we used is powered from the sun and made from materials that are 100% recyclable also the production of it is energy efficient and the energy that is used is renewable then it becomes one with nature.
Therfore our consumption is neutral then we need to let people benifit from our development without monarty gain as the first thought.
Who knows if everything was thought of in this regard money wouldn't be spent on war or weapons as it would have a negative impact on others lives.
Money would be spent on creating endless natural supplies of all we could consume making what we consume benifit our planet and people on it.
What an AWESOME discussion! Lots of great ideas, lots of great perspectives and I didn't see any nonsense bickering.
Thank you, Mr. Sandel. Thank you for your time.
No One has to pay. Renewable is actually cheaper. oil had whole century to develop and isn't that good even after that much time. Non renewables have one attractive quality for businesses - control and what you control you can sel. it isn't cheap job creating and of course is super bad for environment. Money is representation of scientific potential in "rich" countries so only they have power to develop renewable power now and fast because time is running out. Good example is germany they are doing quite well and it gives them even more prosperity.
Actually Goverments are irresponsible about problems of Country and of Global . But Citizens they are Good , Peaceful , Helpful and wants to work together and more .
Awesome presentation, I am in love with it. From a fly-less country (Kenya)
What and absolute nonsense - climate change/global warming is a massive scale focused on power and money. To understand this just follow the money and look for who benefits.
Who should pay for it for climate change? Of course the one who has high Carbon and industry produce in thier country. Those countries mostly hit by climate change are those suffered most but those countries who produced highly carbon level should pay for it for thier cause on climate change. It should imposed this in international
Education is key and we can wait for those developing countries to catch up to developed countries of the west. Carbon taxing based on just emission is not fair for the developing countries and market mechanisms to deal with climate chance is only a short term solution, not a good one.
Rich countries paying for something like LED light bulb to get rid of the polluting kerosene lamp in india is a good idea. but thats all it is, an idea. I dont think such a complicated problem can never be monitored and controlled, so the money can go to wherever. Besides its not even a cheap problem as you will need to lay substantial amount of infrastructure, what developed country would agree to pay for that?
At current rate morning frosts will soon become a thing of the past in England. All these new concerns about climate change are justified.
26:24 Why does the beijing Guy looks like Fortune Teller Boot
I'm really concerned with the latter part of this debate. If we hope to have any chance of uniting on this issue across the political spectrum *cannot afford* this discussion devolving into an anti-consumerism partisan issue. Let's focus on solving this urgent issue and not be opportunistic and latch onto it other issues we feel about.
So what, you prefer to solve a problem by denying the cause? Call a spade a spade. Capitalism is used by the wealthy to pillage the earth for their own benefit. Eat the wealthy, save the planet
How much energy is needlessly wasted setting up this Starship Enterprise studio for do gooders to feel how special they are?
MY APARTMENT IS TOO DRY--I NEED A FEW BILLION--hang the rest ????? pww
make the BBC pay for it.
this is bull money make the world go BOOM
Great
Hey folks Demagraphics,solve this imaginary problem.....Math is simple,the developed world and China ,with the exception of the USA is in a demographic/economic death spiral...:)
hey u wanna hear a joke, what do you think BBC means in BBC news?
?
+AUSPICIOUS KONDOR It means BONELESS BUFFALO CHICKEN
Hi
The poorer countries should pay for the climate change, pay for the wall, pay for everything, this is all true.
zz
first comment