COP 27

[Spartacus]

There's an interesting point being raised at COP 27 that richer nations who have in the past or are still polluting should pay into a fund for developing nations to ease their transition into a carbon free or reduced state.

It is seen as a northern vs southern hemisphere debate with northern countries seen as the richer ones and southern countries the developing nations.

There are fears by some that it could be an admission of guilt and that it will open a floodgate of claims from countries most effected by climate change (Pakistan and her recent flooding for instance)

Of course rich countries will point to the global recession and say "we can't afford it"

Good debate subject and what would people on here say needs to happen globally to balance the equation, especially as developing nations are normally more reliant on fossil fuels as they may not have the resources (yet) to go green

[TheCat]

Your comments about how this debate is being 'perceived' are accurate I think...most people would see it through the lens of your comments about developed nations versus developing, North versus South or for some people even white privelige versus oppression of nations of colour....

Unfortunately this perception is not the reality. If one looks at the cumulative carbon emissions by country....of the top 10 nations...while, yes, 8 of them are in the northern hemisphere.....you actually find thag 5 of them are clasified as developing nations, and 5 of them would be considered by most people to be 'non-white'...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

So those more motivated by ideology than pragmatism may find their argument slips away pretty quickly....

Further...while of course nations in need should be assisted by others where possible...how does one disaggregate the climate change impact from other impacts.. ?

Is every natural disaster attributable to climate change? Do we only consider the impact of disasters above a certain 'baseline' criteria?

Also, If economic progress driven by higher carbon emissions has allowed wealthier countries the ability to provide significant humanitarian aid to poorer countries over the decades...should these aid amounts now be netted off the 'climate reparations' being demanded?

Further, life expectancy has increased over the past 100 years in basically every country in the world.... much of that has been driven by medical, technological and industrial innovation in more developed nations, which were at least partially made possible by advanced development, in turn made possible by additonal carbon emissions.....so do we need to net off the relative carbon emissions which have resulted in innovation which has benefitted all nations to varying degrees?

In summary...I think the concept of demanding direct payment of 'climate reparations' in isolation (i.e. the uk should pay x amount direct to pakistan) is an opportunistic farce.....BUT....that doesn't mean that their can't be some additional generic fund (like the imf for example) which ALL nations contribute towards and is used to aid/assist those who may have aditional humanitarian requirements linked to climate change...but it will likely end up being considered as 'aid' rather than 'reparations'....

[diable rouge]

I see Cat still doesn't understand the term 'white privilege' in the context it was originally used...

[TheCat]

Ah yes...the tried and tested..."if someone doesn't think exactly as I do, they just don't understand and should educate themselves"....

In anycase....youre picking on an insignificant/inconsequential phrase in the context of a much broader comment.....but always good to just have a little dig isn't it....?

[diable rouge]

A normal/rational response would've been something along the lines of...

Ok, why was I wrong to use that term in the context that I did?

But Cat doesn't do normal/rational, because Cat can never be wrong. Instead he has to double down, and/or point score, and/or maybe even throw in an ad hominem, and/or caveat something within an inch of its life, and so on.

Anything but I might've been wrong to say that...

[Spartacus]

DR

Rather then slating Cat, why not explain why they were wrong in their use.

It's always easy to criticise but better to educated to stop it happening again.

[TheCat]

Sigh...okay fine...I more meant 'privileged and majority white nations' rather than the text book 'white privelige'.....my heartfelt apologies for my incorrect use of this term....but i didn't need to explain that really, did I? because you knew exactly what I meant, and decided to post on this minutae which in no way really impacts anyones understanding of the broader comment being made....but apparently I'm the one that 'point scores'....

Anyway...anything to say on the actual topic of the thread?