Reflections from COP 29 in Baku
I just returned from COP 29 in Baku, Azerbiajan - the annual end of the year UN climate change negotiations. The major agreement involved money - a commitment of nations to provide 300 billion dollars (US$) to fight climate change, particuarly to help developing countries. Do the major emitters of green house gasses, like the United States, have a responsibility to help the countries that are the most vulnerable - the most impacted?
Two articles...
https://apple.news/A1EF4Sz2nSqGvhMJ55un4Cw
https://apple.news/AWBFlyfS7T9m4mQAK6N94hw
Hi Dr. Walker! I do believe that the major emitters of these gasses do have a responsibility to help heavily impacted countries. According to an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US CO2 Emissions was 421,907 MT, or megatons. This number was from 2023. The next country below us is China, with 249,353MT. We are over double the amount that China emits. Mali, a country in Africa, is most affected by climate change. Two-thirds of the country is a desert, and due to climate change it just keeps getting hotter. Increasing temperatures could lead to crop failures and water shortages, leaving them with not enough food or water. Mali only emits 0.3 tons per person.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
https://www.concern.net/news/countries-most-affected-by-climate-change
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/mali
I think that bigger countries should be held accountable for the consequences of climate change on developing countries. The World Health Organization has estimated that the direct damage costs to health will be US$2–4 billion a year by 2030, vastly due to severe weather and water shortages in smaller and developing countries. As the greatest global contributor to emissions, the US should face the brunt of this charge. Our negligence and greed already cost lives worldwide, yet we continue to negate responsibility and action. If we do not make a change, entire countries may be wiped off the map. If we can't be brought to take care of our planet, and we can't be brought to take care of our people, what are we doing this for?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.who.int/europe/news/item/25-06-2018-climate-change-increasingly-affects-small-countries#:~:text=Small%20countries%20deal%20with%20climate,increasing%20water%20scarcity%20and%20others.
I think the bigger countries should hold a greater responsibility when it comes to climate change. Developed countries have the infrastructure to implement renewable energy sources whereas developing countries have much less resources to use non fossil fuel energy sources. As well as the big, developed countries are the main contributors to greenhouse gases, so it only makes sense that the impacts of climate change should be placed on those countries. Something I find really interesting is comparing countries with the amount of greenhouse gas they emit. I use the data explorer here: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer. The most interesting thing I found while comparing the United States to similar countries was that the United States has 16 times the greenhouse gas emissions of the United Kingdom, while only being 5 times larger in population. This statistic is staggering, and really shows that the United States is at the forefront of this issue.
ReplyDeleteYes, major CO2 emitters like the United States have a bigger responsibility to help fight climate change, considering they contribute more to global emissions. The $300 billion commitment is a good step in the right direction, showing that wealthier nations are able to do their part. However, I also think it is important for all nations to be on board and do what they can, given it is a collective effort to work towards the needed result. This kind of support is key to global efforts to tackle climate change, and every country needs to pitch in to make a real difference.
ReplyDeleteThis site gives a nice breakdown in CO2 emissions by country to show the differences in emissions, both overall and per capita (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country)
Hello Dr. Walker, I do believe that major emitters of greenhouse gasses should do as much as they can to help other countries with climate change. Since the U.S. in particular is a large contributor to greenhouse gasses, that means the effects that come with are partially our responsibility as well. Developing countries have a harder time recovering from things like natural disasters or droughts or famines, so the U.S. should create initiatives that will help with the fallout. The lack of food for example in a developing nation is due to either human pollution or the country not having enough resources to combat rough terrain or the harmful effects of climate change on the land. For example, according to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, "Feed the Future, has helped lift more than 23 million people from poverty and supports research on climate-resilient crops." Not only is this helping solve the issue that comes with developing nations struggling to get food, but it does it in a way that is beneficial to the environment. Feed the Future is on initiative, but the U.S. needs to take more steps in providing assistance to other countries, helping them not only get back on their feet but finding sustainable ways to live. In doing this, it will not only help developing nations but also help the U.S. to use the same methods and apply it to our nation as well. Therefore, the U.S. has more than responsibility to help other countries, it should be our duty to do as much as we can to help fight climate change in and outside of our country.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.usglc.org/blog/climate-change-and-the-developing-world-a-disproportionate-impact/
More developed Countries 100% have a bigger role to play when talking about climate change. As a country develops it needs to make sustainable ways of producing energy with as little climate change as possible? That is very hard for them to do, and in the United States we have seen renewable energy sources have gotten cheaper over the years because of the development of the states. But for undeveloped countries non renewable energy sources are so much cheaper, and they have a lot harder time using their money for the more expensive alternative that doesn't produce green house gases: renewable energy sources. This means that the United States and other developed countries such as China, hint hint, Nudge Nudge. Should care for the planet and do something to stop the vulnerable countries that are near the ocean which will rise with climate change. "'I am not exaggerating when I say our islands are sinking! How can you expect us to go back to the women, men, and children of our countries with a poor deal which will surely plunge them into further peril?' said Alliance of Small Island States chair Cedric Schuster of Samoa in a statement" (Andrew Freedman, 2024). Islands and land near the ocean are vulnerable to the rising tides. We should care for them and help put money into the cause.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.axios.com/2024/11/23/cop29-agreement-climate-finance-deal
Hi Dr Walker, I believe that countries that are major contributors to worsening the effects of climate change with green house emissions do have a responsibility to aid the developing countries that are affected. I would compare the situation to having a neighbor continuously dumping their trash in your yard, and you do not have the time or resources to clean it up. You would get mad and demand your neighbor clean in up since they caused the situation. They are responsible for how it negatively impacts you. The same can be said about developed countries negatively affecting developing countries with green house emissions. The developed countries are a major part of the problem's cause and have a responsibility to help resolve the situation. We all share the earth we live on, so everyone has a responsibility to take care of it. Some have greater ability and resources to create a bigger impact, which is why they have to contribute more. Here is an article that explains why developing countries should receive more support in transitioning towards sustainable practices: https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/chart-october-2021
ReplyDeleteI don't think that being a major cause of greenhouse gasses forces the States into responsibility to help poor nations, it's just coincidence that as one of the wealthiest nations, the States should help poor nations, as a responsibility for the wellbeing of our neighbors. I don't think major emitters are forced to help other nations because they emit more gas, they are responsible to help because they are more wealthy due to the industry. Though if 'help' also means leave the nature of poor countries alone even if it may be economically advantageous, then yes, major causes of greenhouse gasses do have a responsibility to 'help'.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/30/climate-change-rich-countries-poor-service-exports/
DeleteHi Dr. Walker
ReplyDeleteI believe that the commitment to provide $300 billion to combat climate change is a step forward, but it raises important questions about responsibility. Major emitters like the U.S. have contributed significantly to global emissions over time and arguably bear a greater responsibility to support vulnerable nations facing the worst impacts. This funding could help address both climate justice and global solidarity. I found that the article " Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future by Mary Robinson" discusses more on the ethical and practical implications of combatting climate change.
Hi Dr. Walker. I believe that for issues like Climate Change, we are fighting as a planet, not as a country. I would not say that we are responsible for these developing countries. But just like how we are not responsible for the actions of our sports teammates, if we hope to achieve a goal as a team, its always better for us to step up and take the initiative to help. Being selfish does not help us get anywhere when it comes to battles like these, and it kind of defeats the whole purpose of this fight. What they do will end up effecting us in the long run too, so if we can help them, in an indirect way we are also helping ourselves (logic for if we insist on having a selfish mindset).
ReplyDeleteAlso, developing countries are the cause of a decent percentage of pollution, partly because they don't have the funds to get cleaner forms of energy which can be expensive. https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions#:~:text=Developing%20Countries%20Are%20Responsible%20for,Emissions%20%7C%20Center%20For%20Global%20Development
Hello Dr. Walker. The $300 billion commitment is a vital step toward addressing climate change, particularly for vulnerable developing nations. Major emitters like the U.S. have a clear responsibility, given their historical contributions to global emissions. This aligns with the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" in international climate policy.
ReplyDeleteSupporting these nations is not only fair but strategic, as it ensures a cohesive global response and reduces risks like economic instability and migration. I’m eager to explore the articles you shared—were there any discussions at COP 29 that stood out to you regarding implementation?
I agree with many of the comments left here, by which I mean I do believe that developed countries or countries that contribute more to fossil fuel usage, such as the United States or China do have a greater responsibility to deal with that, and therefore have to put more effort into helping the world deal with these issues. However, many of those developing countries, especially in the Middle East, such as Azerbaijan, struggle to move away from fossil fuels because they export them to make revenue for the country. However, many of the biggest importers are also those big developed countries, such as the US, Russia, and China. If those countries move away from fossil fuels and therefore also move away from importing them from developing countries, they can work together to find a different product to trade that doesn't affect the environment so negatively.
ReplyDelete