Poor Nations Demand Climate Money?

Question

Poor countries at a U.N. conference said Tuesday they won't sign a global warming pact unless industrialized nations guarantee them billions of dollars needed to adapt to the impact of climate change.

Now do you believe GW is a means of wealth redistribution?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040101140.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_re_as/climate_conference

Answer 1

I was reading last year that most countries have agreed that the situation has outgrown the Kyoto Protocols and a follow on treaty is needed.  The USA is a day late and a dollar short as usual, but as far as treaties, it's much like SALT I and SALT II.

Answer 2

Well, duh.  When was it ever anything else?

Answer 3

In the end its all about the money.  Money grubbing hoes, falling out of the sky.

Isn't it time that people take action to fix what is wrong with their own shitholes ?

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life.

Answer 4

Now do I believe you?  No...

Answer 5

Sure.  Forget your outrage.

It's to our benefit to reduce global warming.  If that means providing poor countries with technology to do that, it's good for us.

Answer 6

So let them not sign.  Who cares if poor countries sign a global warming pact (since none of them will commit to greenhouse gas limits anyway)?  If we give them billions for greenhouse gasses, they can send most of it right back to us for their black soot, which contributes almost as much to the global problem:

Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming - PhysOrg

http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm...

"Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience."

"Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2."

With so much as stake, perhaps India should rethink their plan to build $2000 cars so their residents can dramatically increase fossil fuel usage:

Time runs out for islanders on global warming's front line

Rising sea levels threaten to flood many of the islands in the fertile Ganges delta, leading to an environmental disaster and a refugee crisis for India and Bangladesh

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinio...

If they can't see by now that they can't afford to be sitting on the sidelines waiting for everyone else in the world to cut emissions to save their cities and residents, then there's not much we can do for them.  

The same goes for China, and their low-lying cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.

The people who caused the GHG portion of the problem over the past 250+ years are mostly gone.  We can't sue our grandparents, all we can do is each do what we can across the planet to modify our lifestyles and our growth goals.  Solving the black soot issue however can have an immediate positive effect, both for global warming and for human respiratory health.  Developing countries need to clean up their own acts to save themselves.

Answer 7

Well it is the poor conutries that are worst affected by global warming. The industrialized countries are the main contributors to the problem which started with the industrial revolution. The poor need to be allowed to develop but in order to do so in a relatively eco-friendly manner is costly.