The History Of Combat Climate Change Politics Essay

The History Of combat Climate Change Politics EssaySuffered from many adverts, such as global warming, humor trade, and pollution, etc., the Earth flummoxs weaker and weaker, which will be no time-consuming to be adapted to support the life and non-living things any much. Especially clime change, it continues endlessly to damage the regular circulation of nature, such as the season that become uncontrollable and unpredictable now. Because of so, at that place appears a controversial topic to argue on between the rich and the poor, which maven should present a high obligation to combat humour change? I think authentic countries should have a higher obligation to combat humor change than growth countries based on many reasons.Primarily, industrial mutation has started since 1860s, so only those create countries that have grabbed that opportunity first to develop themselves (Tan Khaw, n.d.). That revolution has allowed them to develop rapidly in terms of economic, technology, culture and so on, so more or less they ar the one, which have created more effectuate for nowadays climate change. Without farther look, the United States, for instance, have developed genuinely fast after winning the war in 1776 from its colonizer-British. In addition, with their wide time of industrialization, they likewise have enriched the technological advancement meaning that they have the ability with their modern technology to combat the climate change more effective than growing countries, which have started to develop just only in this 21st century. In other(a) words, this is a very short length for develop countries to have the ability to combat, for they just grow up and be vulnerable.Becoming the industrialized countries before the other developing countries in the land, it also means that they be also rich or richesy in terms of property or treasury. Again, the United States have the highest GDP per capita $ 14.66 meg comparing with the othe r countries around the world (CIA, 2011). The United States, at that placefore, accompanied with the other developed countries-such as France, Great Britain, Canada and Japan, etc., argon able to spend for this combatting. Notably, there be many developed countries on this planet, so they can ferment cooperatively with each other to deal with this problem. And there also has a platform already in the international symbolise-such as the Kyoto protocol host of the Unite Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997 based on United Nations, which allows them the work space to focus on environment, specifically climate change. I strongly believe that they will be able to deal with this problem, for they are not only wealthy in terms of property but also technological advancement.Next, they are the to the highest degree powerful in the international stage. For example, just a few of import counties-such as the US, France and Great Britain, are able to take actio n or intervene almost countries wars in the Middle East-Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance. They, therefore, will be able to take action in combatting the climate change as well, for their joint is very effective to gather the other countries to work on that chore. Conversely, if the developing countries call for combatting the climate change, there will have even no one to join hand since they are developing and weak, and they have no more money and have no special modern technology.Moreover, this task of combatting climate change strongly need participation from the strong governments, and those governments are particularly developed countries including U.S., France, Great Britain and other industrialized countries. The reason why developed countries should have a higher obligation to combat the climate change was mainly the policy of those governments. Because policy in those developed countries are stronger than any other developing countries, they work more effective a nd could march on the motivation of combating climate change in both their states and other developing states. For example, United States had introduced Energy Independence policy in the aim of trim the U.S. import of any source energy (OECD, 2008). This policy could take key into the reduction of CO emissions, which likely avoid the impact on climate however, this policy could only be done by rich countries (developed countries) repayable to the high subsidy of contributing to this policy. On the other hand, if those developed countries do not do so, it will be a huge impact on environment as well as climate change. In fact, there is an expectation of investment in energy infrastructure intimately 20 trillion US dollars around the world which mostly are invested by developed countries (United Nations, 2012). Then there will have long-term impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, which likely effect on climate change, in the next 20 years. As a result, strong policies as well as d eveloped countries have a higher meaningful role in motivating and combating the climate change than developing countries.Beside the preceding(prenominal) points, such as industrial revolution, property, the influence in the international stage and the internal policy of those developed countries, which those rich nations have higher points compared to the developing nations, there is also wide gap between them. In India in 2008, for example, according to World Bank more than 456 million people were living under the poverty line, so it seems so ridiculous to push one who could not even help it own people who have not had a better living condition to contribute to fighting the climate change, which is generally considered as the rootage of the developed nations who have both wealth and resources to do this problem easily. It is unfair while the advantages call for the disadvantages to solve the equivalent issues.To sum up, developed nations who have many potential factors such as the advancements of the technology resulting from the early industrial revolution, plenty of resources, their influence in the world politics, good management in those nations, and the leading in living type of their people should pay high contributions to fight against the climate change because they are the ones who cause most of the pollution and gain many benefits from their actions. It is obvious that the causers of the problem should be the solvers of those by themselves. However, it would be much better if both developed and developing countries cooperate with each other to deal with the climate change, for there is one reason which it should be taken into account we are in the same planet, so we need to help each other to root out the common problem.