Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Environmental responsibility, developed world should take more
Section H. Health, science and technology
The debate about how to tackle global warming presents a paradox. On the one hand, most of the damage done to the environment historically was done by Western nations, which industrialised first, and reaped the economic benefits. On the other hand, many of the world’s most significant producers of CO2 today are developing countries, which are only just industrialising, and their role in CO2 emissions is only growing. China is the largest single polluter (though it pollutes less per person than the USA), with 16.4 per cent of the global emissions total in 2011, with America a close second with 15.7 per cent. Brazil, Indonesia, Russia and India (all developing as middle-income nations) occupy places three to six in the league table of carbon producers (though if the EU is counted as one entity rather than 27 separate countries, it rises to third place). This paradox therefore presents a difficult question: should developed countries bear more of the burden for reducing emissions and preventing global warming?
Pros
[1] Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of man-made action today was put there by the developed world; thus, they are the ones primarily responsible for the damage. Moreover, they are also the ones who have benefited from it historically, getting rich by industrialising before the developing world could catch up, and so are more able to absorb the substantial economic costs of reducing emissions.
[2] The developed world still produces a significant, if not the most significant, share of global emissions. As such, it would be perfectly viable and successful for these countries to prevent climate change by reducing their own emissions. For instance, the G8 Club of rich nations produces one-third of emissions on their own; they could make substantial inroads into the problem of carbon emissions simply by cutting that number.
[3] Who is affected by emissions is not the question; what is important is who causes them. If we accept that it is possible for countries to owe obligations to those outside their borders, then surely the obligation not to create brutal environmental destruction is one of them? Moreover, if we were to deny that obligation, then treating the ’developing world’ as a whole would make no sense; it is not a coherent collective that shares any kind of identity, so could not be expected to act in collective interests.
Cons
[1] The developed world did emit a lot of CO2 in the past, but it did not know that what it was doing was damaging; at the time that industrialisation began, we did not realise that global warming was occurring, and certainly not that it was a man-made phenomenon. By contrast, the developing world’s current refusal means that it is wilfully and with foresight destroying the environment.
[2] It is simply not possible to create the kind of change we need without involving the developing world. Not only do less developed countries now represent the bulk of the world’s emissions, but their emissions are rising; as such, even if developed countries were to cut their emissions, the emissions would simply be replaced. Moreover, a global political consensus is required to attain change, which cannot be done if the developing world shirks responsibility.
[3] The developing world should take the lead in preventing emissions, because it is these countries that will be most affected if they rise. For instance, flooding, one of the primary environmental consequences of global warming, threatens to largely wipe out Bangladesh and create a refugee crisis in that region. That is a burden that the developing world must deal with.
Possible motions
This House believes that the developed world should bear the burden of fighting climate change.
This House would require all countries to cut emissions equally.
Related topics
Child labour can be justified
Cars in city centres, banning of
Global warming, binding emission targets for