As long as countries aren't even taking the burden-REDUCING measure of cutting the ridiculous waste of tax monies shoveled as corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industry, what does it matter how much and who might hypothetically contribute funds to protecting the climate?
Undoubtably if you consider the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from industrial times, the USA will be right up there with the top emitters if not the top, and of course all the developing countries will clamour for remuneration, which is going to ruin any chances of climate agreements, because the US could not agree with that it would cost way too much.
I mean obviously a country that has contributed more to the progression of climate change should morally dedicate more research and stuff towards trying to res=verse it or at least slow their role in it. But one could say that with all the people and cars and factories in China, they should try and contribute to making their role in climate change better. But then you could say that by giving the US loans and money and whatnot, when the US spends money on climate change research China is inherently doing their part in contributing to the slowing of climate change.
But the burden of it should not be tied to the county's particular contribution of climate change. Science is not something we look at for specific areas, especially with a broad subject like climate change which has countless numbers of ways to fix or at least slow the progression of. So the research in any country will help the climate change all over the world. So countries can use the results and the theories/ideas that are created by other countries because the effect takes place on the entire climate, not just one countries specific climate (unless of course the climate makes the theory unusable like something related to temperature might work in cold countries or cold areas but not in desert areas or hot areas so there will be some differentiation between areas depending on the theory/idea). But countries can contribute to slowing the progression simply by implementing the ideas and using the devices and knowledge that other countries come up with. If I invent a car engine that goes 5,000 miles on a gallon of water and it only costs $200, my country is not going to be the only one that is going to want use the engine in all their vehicles, so if a country gets rid of all their gas-consuming engines and replace them with engines that have no emissions and are cheap to buy and cheap to continue to use that country is therefore contributing to slowing the progression of climate change or contributing to lower the human effect on the climate or climate change.
So personally, I don't think a country should be tied down the amount of contribution based on their use, but I do think that it is the right thing to do. Whether they want to contribute research or just buy/use the things that come about from different country's research, as long as they make an effort to slow their effect on the world's climate I will be happy.
Personally, I'd tie it more to current emissions, or at least emissions in the last 20 or so years. It seems... perhaps a tad unreasonable to fault people for something that they didn't know, at the time, was actually a problem.
Of course, that still puts most of the burden on, well, the US and China.
I'll wait to hear the evidence on 'climate change'. Is there any evidence of unnatural change in climate based on historical evidence? How could there be?
Why should countries using this excuse to tax their citizens even more be paying when developing countries are creating far more pollution?
How exactly, are these supposed effects on the climate to be mitigated? Make the planet fly in a different orbit? Or just pay a lot more tax...
First you have to prove a claim in Court Then you need evidence that CO2 caused this damage ? It has to be proven
on the atomic level . Prove that CO2 caused this affect ?
Define Climate Change first them we communicate.
That sounds fair, but of course there is no man-made Climate Change.
So all we need to do is cut the funding for all this nonsense and start saving the taxpayers billions each year.
-----------------------
could you first show proof of this so called clame ,have the people that scammed so much and are getting busted still not proof this was a big scam not enough for you to see you were worshiping a false god .
"Burden"??.............What Burden??
There is no credible, unmanipulated, scientific data that supports the notion of Catastrophic, Man-made, Global Warming...........NONE.............Perio...
If one country has released more CO2 into the environment than another country, should the country that released more CO2 be required to do more to mitigate the effects of that CO2?
