Author Topic: United Nations  (Read 1687 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2022, 12:31:35 pm »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/loss-damage-responsible-climate-change-122858378.html

Quote
Loss and damage: Who is responsible when climate change harms the world's poorest countries, and what does compensation look like?

Western civilization. Unrestricted relocation of climate refugees into Western countries.

Quote
You may be hearing the phrase “loss and damage” in the coming weeks as government leaders meet in Egypt for the 2022 U.N. Climate Change Conference.

It refers to the costs, both economic and physical, that developing countries are facing from climate change impacts. Many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries have done little to cause climate change, yet they are experiencing extreme heat waves, floods and other climate-related disasters. They want wealthier nations – historically the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions – to pay for the harm.

A powerful example is Pakistan, where extreme rainfall on the heels of a glacier-melting heat wave flooded nearly one-third of the country in the summer of 2022.

The flooding turned Pakistan’s farm fields into miles-wide lakes that stranded communities for weeks. More than 1,700 people died, millions lost their homes and livelihoods, and more than 4 million acres of crops and orchards, as well as livestock, drowned or were damaged. This was followed by a surge in malaria cases as mosquitoes bred in the stagnant water.

Pakistan contributes only about 1% of the global greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. But greenhouse gases don’t stay within national borders – emissions anywhere affect the global climate. A warming climate intensifies rainfall, and studies suggest climate change may have increased Pakistan’s rainfall intensity by as much as 50%.
...
With Egypt hosting this year’s U.N. climate conference, it’s not surprising that loss and damage will take center stage.

Countries in Africa have some of the lowest national greenhouse gas emissions, and yet the continent is home to many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries.
...
The conversation on loss and damage is inherently about equity. It evokes the question: Why should countries that have done little to cause global warming be responsible for the damage resulting from the emissions of wealthy countries?

They should not be.

Quote
That also makes it contentious. Negotiators know that the idea of payments for loss and damage has the potential to lead to further discussions about financial compensation for historical injustices, such as slavery in the United States or colonial exploitation by European powers.

All of this should be raised, except it should not be about financial compensation, but instead demographic compensation.

Quote
Two elements of developed countries’ reluctance to formalize a loss and damage mechanism involve how to determine which countries or communities are eligible for compensation and what the limitations of such a mechanism would be.

What would a threshold for loss and damage eligibility look like? Limiting countries or communities from receiving compensation for loss and damage based on their current emissions or gross domestic product could become a problematic and complicated process. Most experts recommend determining eligibility based on climate vulnerability, but this can also prove difficult.

Which is why it shouldn't be thought of in financial terms in the first place. Just let all climate refugees migrate without restriction and at no cost to themselves! At the same time, heavily limit births in the destination countries. The real resources (most obviously housing) freed up from the reduced birth rate can then be used by the climate refugees instead.

Quote
Over a decade ago, developed countries committed to provide US$100 billion per year to fund adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. But they have been slow to meet that commitment, and it does not cover the damages from the climate impacts the world is already seeing today.

What good is sending money to places that will eventually become uninhabitable anyway? As always, the correct answer is to move the people to where the money is, not the other way round.