Copenhagen: Limited will to sacrifice money for the future Copenhagen: Limited will to sacrifice mo
Given that representatives from 77 developing nations including China, India and nearly all of those in South America and Africa temporarily walked out of the United Nations Climate Change conference Monday in Copenhagen, it seems reasonable to question what role the gap between rich and poor plays in a debate characterized by the need to work together or eventually die together.
Assuming climate change is as dangerous as generally accepted, then developing nations are equal to industrialized nations in terms of their value to a possible solution. According to the New York Times, the representatives who walked out of the conference believed a push was underway to abandon negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol. That protocol does not restrict the emissions of developing nations, but they feared another form of treaty would do so.
Haven't Western nations already become wealthy through environmentally-damning industrialization? Why shouldn't developing nations do the same? Environmentally sustainable industrialization is more expensive than its alternatives, so shouldn't the West essentially take some of the wealth it has accrued and give it to developing nations so they don't follow the same path?
It plans to do so, but read on for a quick lesson in human nature.
United States Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at the conference industrialized countries will be spending $350 million over five years on technology for renewable and nonpolluting energy in the developing world. That's $70 million per year for China, India, South America and Africa combined to help avoid the apocalypse as the majority of their citizens work to escape abject poverty.
In contrast to that $70 million per year, the United States' Environmental Protection Agency budget for Fiscal 2010 alone is $10,486 million. That's just one agency in one country. It seems the developing world is expected to combat global warming mostly on its own dime.
Meanwhile, the New Republic reports that in the United States skepticism about global warming as a reality has increased its hold. Between April 2008 and October 2009, Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent, and those who attribute global warming to human activity dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent.
Assuming climate change is as dangerous as generally accepted, then developing nations are equal to industrialized nations in terms of their value to a possible solution. According to the New York Times, the representatives who walked out of the conference believed a push was underway to abandon negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol. That protocol does not restrict the emissions of developing nations, but they feared another form of treaty would do so.
Haven't Western nations already become wealthy through environmentally-damning industrialization? Why shouldn't developing nations do the same? Environmentally sustainable industrialization is more expensive than its alternatives, so shouldn't the West essentially take some of the wealth it has accrued and give it to developing nations so they don't follow the same path?
It plans to do so, but read on for a quick lesson in human nature.
United States Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at the conference industrialized countries will be spending $350 million over five years on technology for renewable and nonpolluting energy in the developing world. That's $70 million per year for China, India, South America and Africa combined to help avoid the apocalypse as the majority of their citizens work to escape abject poverty.
In contrast to that $70 million per year, the United States' Environmental Protection Agency budget for Fiscal 2010 alone is $10,486 million. That's just one agency in one country. It seems the developing world is expected to combat global warming mostly on its own dime.
Meanwhile, the New Republic reports that in the United States skepticism about global warming as a reality has increased its hold. Between April 2008 and October 2009, Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent, and those who attribute global warming to human activity dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent.