Who should pay for disasters in poor countries caused by global warming?

Question

Historically the rich countries has emitted way more greenhouse gases then the poor ones.

What if the rich world decides we don't want to change and reduce the amount of emitted greenhouse gases as much as needed to mitigate global warming but goes the other way by adapting and rebuilding our societies to fit a new climate.

Who do you think should pay the costs for more severe droughts, starvation and floodings in poor countries caused by the changed climate?

Should the rich world just do what we usually does, leave it up to each country and convince them and ourselves they should satisfy with the crumbs we offer them as humanitarian aid, despite the fact that we have caused the problem?

If you don't believe in man made global warming please make this question hypothetical.

So far I believe all the answers given means

"No, we don't think the rich world needs to help the poor to solve problems caused by global warming".

But, if we causes damages to anyone in our own countries we are usually sentenced to compensate that person.

Ginny: That's what I hope to find out. That rich countries (or at least the people living in them) have hearts and conscience too.

Answer 1

I have heard it said that it is impossible to pin any one extreme weather event down to global warming, it is just that they are occurring more frequently. Rising sea water level is one exception where perhaps flood defences or relocation costs could be paid for by a carbon tax worldwide. Whether aid works in lifting countries out of poverty due to corruption and other factors has become a matter of much debate, but I believe we have to keep trying and hopefully improve. Concentration on fair trade, education and health may be more productive than just concentrating on the effects of natural disasters.

Answer 2

You have it backwards. You are applying the PROJECTION argument -- but for the most part, Global Warming activists are the ones that exhibit the mentality of the follower that you decry instead of the independent thinker. Most Global Warming deniers are the ones that would stand in the way of a Holocaust. They do not follow the words of politicians blindly just as the people of Germany were swayed by Hitler to hate the Jews. I've been to YAD VASHEM so I'm pretty sure you do not know what you are talking about. The people that deny the dangers of cigarette smoking are just as unscientific as those that embrace global warming -- not a decent scientist among the lot and ignoring the fact that the earth has been COOLING for the last 10 years prompting a name change of the movement from Global Warming to CLIMATE CHANGE is evidence too strong to ignore. But to the point at hand, politicians for global warming are asking you to declare war on PLANT FOOD and requiring that we assign market values for EXHALE. Try to keep up please. First of all we have a basic understanding of climate and do not have the hubris to assume that any acts of man short of total deforestation or nuclear Armageddon can change the global climate. We are NOT easily swayed by the words of politicians and understand that most legislation that was proposed to prevent Global Warming was based on lining the pockets of those people that "Would be reimbursed for NOT cutting down rain forests" and "Not Industrializing". Essentially paying someone to do nothing. Global warming got Al Gore a Nobel Prize when it should have gone to the woman that braved death every day to keep schools open for GIRLS in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Global Warming critics are simply not giving politicians a free pass. And the fact that the world has been COOLING for the last 10 years, that the rain forests are bigger than they were 20 years ago (lumberjacks know that if they don't replant, they will be out of a job), that global cooling ended in 1985 (to be replaced by global warming? -- hey, liars gotta make money somewhere), and that DDT would have saved 30 million lives from malaria since 1985, escapes Rachel Carson and those that are so very easily manipulated by sound bytes. Sure, we would be against it IF IT WERE REAL, but like the battle cry of the environmentalist movement it's just another fad to get you to cough up money and support for something that doesn't exist. Did you know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Did you know that it comprises about 90% of the greenhouse gas on the planet? Did you know that 1 hour of water evaporation in the oceans accounts for more than all of the man made greenhouse gas emissions over the last 100 years? Wake up. Man isn't as dangerous, as stupid or as important to the climate as a politician's ego and greed would lead you to believe. I hope this has been educational for you. It wasn't meant to be insulting. Don't be a lemming. Politicians and environmentalists love lemmings.

Answer 3

No disasters are caused by global warming. The whole scare is a lie to get people's money. Rich countries already pay for most disaster relief in poor countries. Telling them they should pay more will anger them and they will help poor countries less than they do now. Forget all the global warming nonsense.

Answer 4

Well I'm not much for Global Warming what about all the billions of dollars that the U.S. gives in aid every year to poor countries all over the world, its amazing that you left out just how much money rich countries all ready give in aid. But hey if you want to personally give you should dig deep down into your own pocket and give it seems only right :).....................

Answer 5

Weigh that against all of the benefits those countries have received from the United States. Foreign aid, aid from the United Nations and the World Bank which we fund, access to our markets with an unequal advantage because they have no labor or environmental laws, charitable contributions from Americans (the most generous people on the planet). Disasters have always occurred and they always will. The portion that we may cause will still not come close to the good we have done for the third world.

Answer 6

So who paid for the disasters that occurred PRIOR to AGW?

Hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves and tornadoes are not caused by global warming. They have always, and will always be a part of nature. A cycle of creation and destruction that has existed since the dawn of time.

Maybe AGW is occurring and is just the naturally designed consequence of human over-population. What if nature INTENDED this to happen.

Answer 7

First... prove the disaters were caused by global warming...

Then prove what causes global warming. (not theory... CONCRETE UNDENIABLE PROOF)

You are blaming both drought and flooding on global warming in the same sentance...

And... the US gives money and other stuff to almost every country in the world already... If the US quit giving money away... most of the rest of the world would be bankrupt in a year.

Answer 8

I believe that it is the "rich" countries that respond to natural disasters in "poor" countries now. If you look back at recent events, its the USA that is one of the first to respond with aid.

Answer 9

Whether you believe or not,
First you would have to prove that the current global warming is induced by man. Then you would have to prove what percent is caused by man.
Not some "sceintists say" consensus crap but real proven empirical data.
I would then have to say good luck with that, youre gonna need it.
If it is proven real, the poor will assuredly bear the brunt of the load in the "New World Order"while the elite have carbon credit orgies.

Answer 10

I foresee more disasters for the third world in our efforts to solve global warming than I do from global warming if it were true.