IR Debate No. 7: Stopping Global Warming: Who Should Pay?

By


I had a good time with the final IR Debate this week, since the topic was global warming. The media has blown it up into a laughable farce.  Earth was created about 7,000 years ago and has been going through  cooling and heating cycles ever since the global Flood. One of the most obvious results is the Ice Age. Making plans and spending billions of dollars to try to control something that only God can command is neither humble or wise. 

Since I don't believe that anyone should "pay for stopping global warming" in the first place, I decided to pick a side and do the assignment like I was playing a part. All I did to satisfy my conscience was place notes at the end. It worked. Here's the phony essays, which earned an A+. 

The initial:

Obviously, global warming is a big deal. Climate change is more prevalent today than it has been at any other time in history. Plants, animals, and people are negatively affected by global warming. Concerning the question at hand, I side with Argument 2 because it's the fairest. Only developed countries should pay to stop global warming because they are the ones responsible for it. Historically, developed countries have contributed 79% of carbon emissions, which is an overwhelming majority. The United States, China, and Russia are responsible for the most emissions historically. And today, the top three are Russia, the United States, and India. 

One may notice that India is not a developed country, and thus seems to negate this argument. However, climate justice is extremely complex. When asking who should pay to stop global warming, it is important to consider numerous factors. Responsibility, which is addressed in the preceding paragraph, is only one of them. Another factor is justice. When developed countries were industrially on the rise, they didn't have to pay for global warming. They were able to freely develop without hindrance. So why should developing countries have to pay for growth when developed countries didn't have to when they were at that stage? It is just for third world countries to have the freedom to develop like the others. Let the playing field be leveled. 

In conclusion, only developed countries should have to pay to stop global warming because of responsibility and justice. This is Earth, the third planet from the Sun, humanity's home, and it's being suffocated by human activity. Developed countries have no time to lose. 

 Sources:

“Developed Countries Are Responsible for 79 Percent of Historical Carbon Emissions.” Center for Global Development | Ideas to Action, www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically.

Evans, Simon. “Analysis: Which Countries Are Historically Responsible for Climate Change?” Carbon Brief, May 2022, www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change

Vanessa. “Which Countries Are the World’s Biggest Carbon Polluters?” ClimateTrade, Jan. 2023, climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters.

Third World Countries 2023. worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/third-world-countries.

Note: The thoughts expressed in this essay do not convey the author's real opinion. 

The rebuttal:

Prosperous states used to be similar to current developing countries, except for three differences: Colonization, exploitation, and domination.  During their humble, impoverished, non-industrial days, current developed states had similar difficulties that the developing countries of today face. But as soon as developed countries such as Great Britain and France gained centralized governments and currency, they began taking over the lands of indiginous people and causing them great strife. Considering their outstanding virtue of refusing to take advantage of other people in surrounding or domestic lands, current developing countries ought to be acknowleged.

Not only have developing countries refrained from exploiting people, they also are not substantially responsible for global warming. It's true that developing countries cause roughly half of carbon pollution today, but that statistic pales in comparison to historical pollution numbers. From 1850 to 2021, the United States, China, Russia, and Brazil have caused the most pollution. Since carbon takes 300 to 1,000 years to disappear, most of the pollution caused in 1850, and all of the carbon emssions since, are still in the atmosphere today.  

Yes, developing countries are more directly affected by global warming. However, this seems to align with Argument 2 than with Argument 1. This is a problem that they must solve that developed countries didn't have to at their stage. Like many debate questions, this requires balancing factors. On one side, there is the fact that today, some developing countries contribute to global warming. On the other side, there's the fact that over the course of human events, most pollution has been caused by developed countries. It is just for the cost of stopping global warming to fall on developed countries only. 

Sources:

“Why The World’s Rich Nations Must Pay for Climate Damage.” Yale E360, e360.yale.edu/features/for-climate-equity-developing-nations-must-be-paid-for-damages.

Evans, Simon. “Analysis: Which Countries Are Historically Responsible for Climate Change?” Carbon Brief, May 2022, www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change.

Sizing Up Humanity’s Impacts on Earth’s Changing Atmosphere​: A Five-Part Series    By Alan Buis,  NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide.” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, 16 Nov. 2022, climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20is%20a%20different,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

Note: The author doesn't believe a word of this. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book Report: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus

By
Image
An insane doctor in a stained, white lab coat stands before his worktable, on which is laid the gargantuan body of a hideous monster. He cackles madly as he pulls a lever down, and the grisly beast jolts and rises to stand on two green feet with bad toenails. The monster stares stupidly at the doctor for a moment, then utters three fateful words: "I. Kill. You." He beats the doctor over the head with a chair in less time than it takes to say, "unethical medical experimentation," and breaks a window to reach the outside world, where he will murder as many people as possible. This is not Mary Shelley’s story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. There are three major differences between the modern stereotype and the original novel: the Creature’s appearance, nature, and the character of Victor.  Big. Green. Smelly. Not the Creature. Shelley never referred to him as green. He is probably grayish, if he isn’t a human skin tone, since he was crafted out of pillaged pi
Read more

Kiss That Power Goodbye

By
"In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could not be punished in school for using curse words on social media when commenting about not making the cheer team while she was off school grounds. Do you think students should be held to the same standard when exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech whether they’re on or off school property?"  My answer to this prompt: Public school speech restrictions are in place to protect innocent ears and inhibit conflict. They benefit schoolchildren. However, the favorable result of a policy is not the only factor to take into account when considering its expansion. Before all else, we ought to ask if the entity has the right to take this action.  In this case, the question pertains to the federal government and public school speech restrictions. Since 1979, when the U.S. Department of Education came into being, public schools have been government institutions. The government does not have the
Read more

IR Debate No. 5: Human Rights: A Hollow Promise To The World?

By
States make few efforts to promote and protect human rights. First and foremost, it is important to understand why human rights matter. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is created equal and bears the likeness of God. Fundamental human rights are endowed by God, not by government leaders. State human rights policies affirm that which is already true.  The freedom of expression, right to life, the right to work and get an education, and freedom from slavery and torture all fall under the human rights category. Being generally agreed upon as beneficial principles, these rights also contribute to international norms. Most states say that human rights are good and they are working on them, but they are inconsistent.  Inconsistency holds people and policies back. For example, the right to life is a human right and thus, in theory, it is supported by all democratic countries. However, abortion is still legal in 173 countries out of 195. Many of these nations restrict abortion, but that does no
Read more