Is an even bigger refugee crisis coming? As Europe struggles with its largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, the president of France, François Hollande, has warned that failure to reach a global agreement at the upcoming climate change talks in Paris this December could result in millions of refugees fleeing climate disaster.
One of the key sticking points in the negotiations is the question of financial assistance for developing countries, to help them cut emissions and make the transition towards cleaner economies. Developing countries argue that they have not been responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions produced since the industrial revolution. On the other hand, developed countries are worried that accepting too much liability will open a Pandora’s Box of blame, and argue they do not have the resources to tackle the issue alone.
India is one country that argues the West should pay more for climate change. Can Europe and India reach an agreement on this question? Is there a way round this impasse to a solution that both sides are happy with? To get a response, we spoke to Rajni Bakshi, Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House, an Indian foreign policy think-tank. Here’s what she had to say about EU-India cooperation on climate change:
Well, let’s first look at the need end of it from India’s point of view. I was just looking at chart showing the historical availability of electricity, and Europe has been in the 100% electricity access category for 40 or 50 years now. In India, however, the reality is that only 67% of the rural population and 93% of the urban population have electricity today. So, in India [increasing our electricity supply] is a question of fairness of access to what is an essential good…
That’s the context. Therefore the most basic way this cooperation can thrive is for Europe to continue to make more ambitious cuts. As you know, the European targets are way above the American ones, and that’s very much appreciated in India, but most of the environmental movement in India perceive that the European targets need to be still a little bit more ambitious…
To get another perspective, we also spoke to Neena Gill, a British Labour MEP and Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with India. Did she think that rich countries should pay more for climate change?
Well, this is exactly the position of the Indian government. I believe the World Resources Institute has calculated that India was responsible for only 2.4% of greenhouse gas emissions globally since 1850. So, India clearly believes that the developed world has caused the problem and should pay more. So, India is looking to the West to support its energy projects, and it expects developed countries to do more.
Having said that, the developed world alone cannot address the entire climate change problem alone. I think it is important that every country takes on its responsibilities. So, I think the developed world should makes available technical assistance to developing countries, but it’s important that this challenge is addressed by all countries.
Should rich countries pay more for climate change? Should the EU offer greater support to India because of Europe’s historical legacy of greenhouse gas emissions? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
45 comments Post a commentcomment
They should pay for what they pollute.
Corporations, not countries, should pay for what they pollute.
Iran, china, India and few other highly air and environmental polluted countries, should not only pay more, but also take and make decisive measures in adopting to producing and using environmentally sustainable and clean energy
yes because it’s power global problem
no, the ones who pollute more should pay more
Rich countries that contribute more to climate change yes
Yes depending on the amount they are letting out
Yes.Great. ……………………….We won’t pay anything.
No. Invest money in science and tech.
Define “pay more for climate change” because i dont get it, really!
Should ‘rich countries’ pay more is a euphanism for the tax payer on low to middle income. The ‘rich’ don’t pay taxes, meaning taxes, according to the planet billionaires, is only for the stupid.
So, as others have written already, if you want to see a payment for pollution, then charge the corporations who produce the mess. And charge their main men directly in their own pockets. Not via their corporate responsibility.
However, why are they being given permission to pollute. Are you asking the EU citizen, in a back handed way, to collude in the pollution of our planet? If the answer is yes, then this is telling them they must be prepared to pay for any damage it may cause. Thereby obsolving our leaders of any ‘guilt’ for their actions.
Nobody should pay anything for climate change, as climate has always changed with or without humans.
Notice how “global warming” has turned in recent years into the more ambiguous “climate change“.
“Climate change” is just another cultural Marxist myth.
the rich should pay obviously
We can’t «pay» for climate change: we need to change the way we «apropriate» natural resources, the way we «use» the planet, the way we «produce». Companies, starting with mining and oil companies must be LESS FREE to abuse our planet. Neither «subsidies» nor «carbon taxes» are the solution.
NO , but EU should make a big investment in solar and wind . Solar energy is set to become the cheapest source of electricity in many parts of the world within the next 10 years, according to a new report released by German think tank, Agora Energiewende. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-24/solar-track-becoming-cheapest-energy-source-agora-energiewende/6251322
Are the actual solutions and their consequent charges of money the effective way, or my secret solution should be supported by a myself-approved entity?
The myth that western countries are rich will be exposed in the next few decades. Collectively bankrupt, is the proper way to describe the western world. As soon as the western world can’t plunder the resources of the rest of the world anymore, the party’s over.
.
Defiantly NO, Why should I pay more because Poland pollutes more ?
The ones with more industry should.
Sem dúvida!
Anyone who produces mass he polutes. So he has to pay. From Germany to pakistan & china!
.
Depends if you believe the Eco fanatics or not.
Meanwhile this should make everyone think…
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6785268/Damning-report-as-Sun-investigator-smuggles-himself-from-Turkey-to-Paris-without-passport.html
YES
The industrialization made the continent enter a new era in the wealth of the people. At the same time that industrialization started the climate change. Should we force those who didn’t entered the industrialization and have no wealth to pay for that?
yesss
sure
yes pay more so they can polute more it is a circlr
So you mean Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, UAE, San Marino, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and USA in descending order? Yes, that seems fair.
Absolutely YES. These are the countries that burned more coal, oil and polluted more! But so should the current big polluters.
Absolutely YES. These are the countries that burned more coal, oil and polluted more! But so should the current big polluters!
Ich habe die idee wie das sehr einfah und schnnel kann gut machen nur brauchen richtige leute welche kann das realisiren architekt und menadzer.
No doubt Yes
No , because green energy is cheaper : https://youtu.be/AkCkjbWBdwM?t=1m5s
The ones who pollute the most, should definitely pay a lot more.
Who are they going to pay this money to, god?
Neither! The ones that should pay are the polluters. It does not matter if they are rich or poor. And witch ones are the polluters? The Industries. Whose are the industries? So actually the big international companies of the rich countries go and nest at the poor countries, so the poor countries pollute more. Nice playing ah? For me the answer is that the pollutants have to pay independently. If the pollution is caused by a country/state then this country has to pay the amount of the pollution it is causes. But if the pollution is produced by a private corporation (national or international) they have to pay as well for themselves and not the country that they reside.
What about WV? Aren’t yoy going to say anything about them?
Definitely!!!
Debating Europe has deleted the last week’s debate regarding the entrance of Turkey in the EU. This is not a good sign. Is there any specific reason for that action?
No, gueto suínos polute Lessa!
Πλουσίου επικεφαλούς παρόντος,πάσα αρχή παυσάτω . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8cg_NjGHO0
You really believe those fairytales with climate change?
yes because they are the cause
Of course, there is no reason advanced and industrialized countries can shift the burden to late developed economies. More importantly, late developed economies are now doing the more dirty jobs for customers of the advanced economies to enjoy. Late developed economies are not enjoying too much what they have produced, though they have accumulated wealth with the labour, the advanced economies are also earning much more with the final products. Hence, the advanced economy ought to pay more for climate change. But the president of the largest economy has withdrawn the country from the Accord de Paris now. The US has been consuming most of the world’s production but its president has denied the climate change and even worse, withdrawn from the agreement. How can the US expects itself to lead the world?
Rich countries should pay more but poorer countries should work harder for climate change, which is, foreign investment should not aim at accumulation of maximum wealth at the expanse poor countries’ environment.