args

Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

Let"s start out with the "have to" part of the motion. While I agree with you that it invokes a moral obligation, I also see a second practical part in it. The practical part is, as I have described, the necessity to help in order for any of our own work against global warming to have any effect. If we switch our economy towards sustainable, clean energy this will, at least at the start, be more costly than just using coal and gas, which will make production more expensive. As the market goes to the lowest cost it will give those developing countries, which just have no other chance of building an economy that is stable as they lack the financial recourses, the incentive to fill the gap created with cheaper production on the costs of the environment leading in total to no positive effect for our climate. In addition to that point we have the problem of a growing population in those developing countries. As they will with time demand a similar standard of living to the developed world, it will again go on the costs of our climate. We can"t change this wish for a higher standard of living, which also brings us into the moral sphere. We can"t prevent this from happening, but we can prevent the growth of the population as, as we have always seen, an increase in the education and standard of living diminishes the growth in population. Those countries need to get to an acceptable standard of living to prevent an explosion in the population and harm to the environment. This increase in the standard of living can"t be achieved by the countries without help as they lack the financial capacities, which is why they need financial aid and this is especially important if we want them to do this economic growth it in a sustainable way. We need to create the incentive for them to do it in such a way. Now this is our moral obligation as we have always developed our wealth on the oppression of the weaker countries. The second part of our moral obligation lies in the fact that we are the cause of the major problem of climate change. Our behavior in the last centuries and also now is the reason for the development, which is why it is our obligation to pay the costs. If we don"t want other countries which develop now to use exactly the same way of developing their industry we have to pay for it, as we can"t just say that they aren"t allowed to do so, while we were. This is why both on a practical and a moral level we are obliged to pay for the development in the developing countries even though it both fights climate change. Now to your points. The first one is again that the foreign aid isn"t sufficiently effective as a means to improve their industry. While I have to agree in some cases, I have to object to the generalization. Foreign aid is the main reason many of the developing countries even have any stable economy and only with financial aid it is possible to build such an economy. While the industry that is established there is still in no way close to friendly to the environment, we can"t be surprised as I have explained above. We need to make the availability of new technology in this field better and also have to increase our financial aid in order for them to have any chance of using sustainable sources of energy in their industry. Your model of cutting aid won"t result in a benefit for the climate but rather in the inability to innovate from a now insufficient economy towards an industry that is sustainable. Also we have to be giving stronger incentives to direct the funds towards sustainability which hasn"t been done so far which is another reason for why we can"t expect results already in this direction. Your second point starts out self contradicting, but the argument is that due to other problems in the country the aid won"t be used to prevent global warming. I have to agree that as I have said before we have to increase the incentives for actually doing it as well as try to lower the cost of the technology. But also I think that the solution of the other problems is connected to the solution of the problem of climate change. If you have a poor population with a low standard of living in a country with a weak economy, the people will use what they can use in order to survive. The concern for the climate, while mostly having the biggest impacts right there in those countries, is still a secondary problem of the future that won"t be tackled if left by itself, as there are more urgent problems. This will stay exactly this way until a development is finished as all this time the least expensive mean will be taken in order to reach the goal of economic growth and better living conditions. Now if we want them to not do this we have to solve those problem which is always only possible if we allow economic growth in those countries and if we don"t want that growth to be on the shoulders of our climate, we have to pay the gap towards them being able to do it with clean energy and stress it with incentives. Therefore we need again an increase in foreign help, which, as I have explained above, is our duty to provide in order for them to build an industry that is clean and sustainable. To conclude I also think that it is a global problem but the main thing we can"t forget is that it is a global problem produced by the now developed countries and that if we wish for other countries to go through their development in a different way, we are the ones obliged to pay for it.