Climate Control Compensation for Damage - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Poor countries have gradually continued to suffer the perils of climate change since the onset of industrialization. Developed countries have often converted poor countries into dumping places for their industrial wastes. In addition, developed countries have taken a toll in the emission of the largest percentage of carbon IV oxide gas into the atmosphere. The resultant adverse impacts have not only affected poor countries but also the rich countries. However, the harm is not as great as in poor countries because rich countries have enough resources to help adapt to climate change. Climate control compensation is the ultimate remedy, and developed countries should be held accountable to the poor countries. There are numerous options poor countries can take as remedial actions to curb the menaces of climate change. Rich countries paying poor countries for the harm they have created is appropriate in helping them to adapt to climate change.

Climate change and global warming have a greater impact on third-world and poor countries than on wealthier countries. Rich nations dominate the allocation of global money, military stock, expertise, and natural resources (Carney 17). The negotiating strength of rich nations in the global economy has a significant impact on poor countries. It is possible to claim that poor countries have limitations and limited financial capability in comparison to wealthier countries. This condition has a direct influence on poor nations grappling with the effects of climate change. In the case of poor nations agricultural production, a lack of financing, human resources, and technology has hampered their ability to engage in sustainable agricultural operations. Nonetheless, the majority of CommonWealth nations, European countries, and the United States are better positioned to preserve their agricultural production from the effects of climate change. This element reflects the capacity mismatch between wealthy and poor nations, which stems not just from one sector, such as agriculture, but also from others, such as natural resource management, in response to climate change. Rich countries, on the other hand, may help poor countries through international collaboration. For example, in certain poor countries, USAID and AUSAID initiatives for climate change projects.

Poor countries are characterized by underdeveloped economies prompted by low living standards. Thus, they have fewer resources to recover from disasters attributed to climate change. Poor nations are more vulnerable to climate change because their economies are almost fully dependent on climate-reliant activities such as farming (Shapiro 103). For example, aridity and desertification are the most common disasters that are advancing in poor countries. The harsh climatic conditions have, however, been attributed to global warming, which is caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Intervention required to curb the impacts of climate change by poor countries requires a pool of resources. These resources may constrain the economies of poor countries because they have small gross domestic productivity as compared to the rich ones. For example, activities such as afforestation that helps to restore the greener surfaces where vegetation has been lost need resources (Doelman 1583). Irrigation is another activity that requires resources to support agricultural growth. However, poor countries do not have the capabilities to finance all climate-related challenges. As compensation, rich countries should create a fund that will help to pay the poor countries for the harm they have created.

Poor countries appear to be more vulnerable to climate change since their economies rely more heavily on climate-dependent industries, particularly farming. Guldberg indicated in a specific discovery that storms and coral bleaching as a result of climate change activities might potentially harm fishing grounds and farming systems, notably in the global Coral Triangle (McManus 2125). The coral triangle is located in numerous poor Southeast Asian nations, including Indonesia. This region provides more than half of the worlds fish nutrition. If this area is persistently threatened by climate change, the world community will no longer be able to consume fish. The Great Coral Barrier in Queensland, Australia, is one approach that poor nations, particularly those in this region, might use to mitigate the effects of coral degradation caused by climate change. The regional governments of North Queensland, in collaboration with the communities that live in the GBR, have imposed strict regulations on the Great Barrier Reef National Park. This is applicable to various coral islands in the World Coral Triangle. Consequently, both the government and the people are appropriately protecting the fish ecology in GBR, particularly coral fishes. Furthermore, the North Queensland Government uses the ecotourism idea to preserve the environmental values of the Great Barrier Reefs, which is a World Heritage Area.

Limited resources in the poor countries have caused inadequate access to alternative technology that will curb the impacts of climate change. According to Sarkodie, individuals in underdeveloped countries have limited access to modern electricity (Sarkodie 458). Rich nations, on the other hand, have the greatest rates of energy consumption, which is a key contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. Rich countries grow rich through discovering and utilizing more energy in their industrial operations, which is likewise higher than poor countries. This can be seen as rich-country hegemony over poor-country hegemony. Furthermore, this criterion discriminates against poor nations, particularly in the international carbon trading system, because poor countries serve as emission filters for greenhouse gasses produced in excess by rich countries.

Even though rich nations appear to colonize poor countries based on the aforementioned metrics, there are a number of contrasting viewpoints. To begin, on September 21, 2006, the chairman of the Virgin Group stated that the firm will contribute around 1.6 billion, which is equivalent to the Virgin Groups profits for ten years, to disadvantaged nations to fund environmental programs (Betzold 296). However, there might be a conspiracy at work in pushing a green movement such as the one started by the Virgin Group. Many corporations, such as the Virgin Group, have already agreed to subsidize their profits for environmental protection, including climate change adaptation and mitigation. In truth, many of those corporations have failed to deliver on their environmental conservation claims. There should be an independent legal organization, such as the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), that can control, compel, or even prosecute such firms. The second point is that numerous rich countries are beginning to support the need for global financial help in climate change adaptation for poor countries. However, most poor nations are extremely exposed to the effects of climate change because of their population, dynamical profitability, natural resources, poor conditions, and land declination.

International bodies suggest that rich nations have made poor countries suffer atrocities of climate change. In 1996, the Kyoto Protocol proposed that wealthier nations make pledges to mitigate the effects of climate change, particularly by reducing carbon emissions (Tu 15). Most nations have signed several international accords, but wealthy countries such as the United States and Australia are likely to maintain their positions. Although global communities cannot avert climate change and its consequences, rich and poor nations may collaborate. Rich nations should provide financial assistance to communities struggling with the effects of climate change, particularly in agriculture and aquaculture. Furthermore, rich nations may strengthen the ability of poor countries human resources through climate change mitigation and adaptation training and courses. Furthermore, professional climatologists from developed nations might share their expertise and experiences with scientists from developing countries through educational development cooperation. Rich countries might give poor countries with climate change scientific support technologies. This is critical in order to launch and even increase research into climate change science in developing nations. The study findings would be the most important recommendations for all stakeholders, especially the disadvantaged communities, to be able to adapt to climate change. Whereas poor nations, such as those with global forests, would benefit rich countries that contribute more to global warming. Although global communities cannot avert climate change and its consequences, rich and poor nations may collaborate. Rich nations should provide financial assistance to communities struggling with the effects of climate change, particularly in agriculture and aquaculture. Training and courses on climate change mitigation and adaptation can help rich countries build the capability of poor countries human resources. Furthermore, professional climatologists from rich nations might share their expertise and experiences with scientists from underdeveloped countries through educational development cooperation. Rich countries might give poor countries with climate change scientific support technologies. This support is critical in order to launch and increase research into climate change science in developing nations. The rich nations should further ensure that the funds they offer to the affected poor countries meet the objectives and the most important recommendations for all stakeholders, especially the disadvantaged communities. This effort will help citizens in poor countries to be able to adapt to climate change. Whereas poor nations, such as those with global forests, would benefit rich countries that contribute more to global warming.

Even though paying poor countries by rich countries for the harms relating to climate change could serve as the best option, there are underlying flaws that accompany this strategy. Firstly, there are countries that are still developing but they today stand out as major emitters of greenhouse gas. For instance, China is termed by the US as a developing nation but it has high industrial production levels that contribute to the emission of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere (Forkel 51). For this reason, countries that lie in the same category as China will demand to be compensated by the most developed nations such as the US. Hence, it will be unequal to compensate a country such as China because when compared to other nations that do not have active industrial productivity. Therefore, there is a need for environmentalist bodies such as UNEP to establish an efficient classification criteria that will help to classify poor and developing vulnerable countries that need to be compensated by rich countries.

Secondly, poor and rich nations should be driven towards activities and production procedures that emit zero carbon components into the atmosphere. It is estimated that continued emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will lead to destruction of the ecological system of the world such as forestry and the blue economy (Nissan 34). Rich countries should be encouraged to pay poor countries for the resultant adverse impacts of climate change. This aspect will not solve the problem of global warming that is being experienced by most poor countries. Rich countries have the capability of paying penalties that are imposed for violation of climate regulations. Therefore, rich countries should be informed to look for alternative ways of production and energy solutions that do not pollute the environment. This approach will ensure that rich countries do not harm others because they will be able to pay. Climate change is an adverse phenomenon that threatens lives on planet earth and every nation needs to work towards ensuring zero emission for a sustainable planet for life in the near future.

Thirdly, paying poor countries to manage the adversity of climate change may become subject to embezzlement of funds due to poor governance and strategy. The primary problem that poor countries face is high rates of corruption (Yeo 330). While rich nations will pay the poor nations to cater to climate change, the funds might be misused for inappropriate purposes and personal gains. Thus, the option to fund poor countries tends to seem inefficient because it requires further accountability strategies that will ensure that challenges accrued from climate change are fully addressed.

Lastly, poor countries should not be encouraged to be paid because rich countries will continue to sell free licenses and permits for their industries worldwide. Rich nations issue free licenses for the construction of industries in poor countries without considering the deployment of sustainable activities that guarantee a healthy future in terms of climate change. Further poor nations may end up adopting similar production approaches and use of fossil fuels due to cheap licenses and zeal to become productive. As a remedy, rich nations need to use new technologies in the production and manufacturing processes to ensure environmental sustainability in the long run (Smarra 1260). New technology such as the use of solar energy and manufacturing of electric engines is ecologically friendly and do not emit poisonous carbon IV oxide gas into the atmosphere. Generally, paying poor countries due to harms caused by climate change is partly not the best option because it will not reach the solution of zero emissions of greenhouse gasses.

In conclusion, climate change has a greater impact on poor countries than on rich countries. The impact may be observed in the environmental damages caused by climate change, which are more severe in poor nations than in rich and developing countries. Poor nations lack the funds to implement programs and measures addressing the effects of climate change in their respective regions. Because of their geographical location, poor nations are more fragile and sensitive to the effects of climate change and related natural catastrophes such as drought and storms than rich countries. Rich nations consume more worldwide energy and contribute more to global emissions than poor countries, resulting in global imbalance in energy consumption, while poor countries contribute to global carbon emission reduction.

The impact of climate change and global warming in poor nations far surpasses that in rich ones, resulting in worldwide injustice regarding the urgency of global climate change action as stressed in the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen, and so on. As a result, wealthier countries must assist poor countries in all climate change-related solutions. For example, by supplying cash and technology, and supporting educational development and research in conjunction with scientists from both nations. To some extent, rich countries can assist the community in poor countries dealing with climate change through environmental education programs, not only by providing financial support to build schools but also by approaching poor countries to initiate and develop environmental education curricula such as climate change awareness. This curriculum might be taught in elementary, middle, and high schools. Rich governments can provide scholarships to young people from poor countries to study climate change studies in rich countries.

Works Cited

Betzold, Carola, and Florian Weiler. Development aid and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Springer, 2018.

Carney, Mark. The growing challenges for monetary policy in the current international monetary and financial system. Remarks at the Jackson Hole Symposium. Vol. 23. 2019.

Doelman, Jonathan C., et al. Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and tradeoffs. Global Change Biology 26.3 (2020): 1576-1591.

Forkel, Matthias, et al. Recent global and regional trends in burned areas and their compensating environmental controls. Environmental Research Communications 1.5 (2019): 051005.

McManus, Lisa C., et al. Extreme temperature events will drive coral decline in the Coral Triangle. Global Change Biology 26.4 (2020): 2120-2133.

Nissan, Hannah, et al. On the use and misuse of climate change projections in international development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10.3 (2019): e579.

Sarkodie, Samuel Asumadu, and Samuel Adams. Electricity access, human development index, governance and income inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Reports 6 (2020): 455-466.

Shapiro, Judith. Chinas environmental challenges. Green Planet Blues. Routledge, 2019. 101-108.

Smarra, Francesco, et al. Data-driven model predictive control using random forests for building energy optimization and climate control. Applied energy 226 (2018): 1252-1272.

Tu, Yong. Urban debates for climate change after the Kyoto Protocol. Urban Studies 55.1 (2018): 3-18.

Yeo, Sophie. Where climate cash is flowing and why its not enough. Nature 573.7774 (2019): 328-332.

Click Here To Order Now!