recently pledged just over $13m to developing countries that have suffered damage from climate change. The issue of such payments, known as “loss and damage”, is likely to be prominent atclimate talks in November. Egypt, which is hosting the conference, has said it will prioritise compensation for developing countries. What is loss and damage and why is it so contentious?
Climate change causes costly damage, including from climate-related natural disasters, such as tropical cyclones, and more gradual changes, such as desertification and rising sea levels. Currently, because climate change is caused by greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, rich industrialised countries are responsible for most of the emissions causing these phenomena. Poor countries often feel the effects first.
Unsurprisingly, developed countries have pushed back against this reasoning since it emerged in the early 1990s, when the text of theFramework Convention on Climate Change was being drawn up. A group of island countries had proposed that an international insurance fund be created to compensate low-lying countries for the damage caused by rising sea-levels. The suggestion was not included in the final text, but the idea has persisted.
In 2015, at the talks that culminated in the adoption of the Paris agreement, developing countries again sought a strong clause on loss and damage financing. But they ended up with only a fudgy reference to the issue. Article 8 of the Paris agreement recognises “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage”. Precisely how to do that was left for future discussions.
That seems extremely unlikely to happen. There is simply no enthusiasm for the issue among the countries expected to pay out. Some developing countries are tentatively seeking redress through international law. On September 22nd theHuman Rights Committee ordered the Australian government to pay compensation to indigenous people living on the islands of the Torres Strait, which are being eroded by rising seas.
IndiraKempis
Climate Change study produces new and creative ways for people to financially capitalize on the purported risk posed by it. From carbon credits, taxes, academic funding, political donations, ESGs, to reparations, everyone has an angle. Modern $cience.
There is no 'Climate Crisis.' Globalists have 'invested' hundreds of billions convincing people that there is a crisis. But in 30 years have spent $0 on solutions. It is simply a way for the ultra-wealthy to enslave the population. This is known as a LONG CON. We Say, Hell NO!
✋ enough distractions. The U.S. Military is the number one single creator of pollution, weapons and consumer of oil.
The US should pay out as we are largely to blame.
'Poor' countries need to show this is because of ClimateChange NOT rampant population explosion, and poor urban planning. The wealth transfer that is our current system relies on rhetoric, and 'true believers', not true scientific facts.
They're only happy when they're taking oil and minerals on the cheap and causing pollution.
Ditatorial a postura desse tablóide que já esteve no passado à altura do honrado povo do UK, mas decadente e comunista, fala de nosso país sem conhecimento da nossa realidade e tão pouco se interessa em verificar as bobagens que repercute vergonhosamente, ofendendo nosso povo!
Compensate developing countries, I have nothing
A way for the Government to take your money.
Climate cabal is all about contol and $$$$$$$$$!
The climate and CO2 lies is about the establishment trying to sell their new financial system to the public. Personal carbon credits/tax.☠️🤡 Its a death cult. Plants love CO2. 🌿
Clients fleeing for the hills lest.....?
Our answer is meaningless, the rich countries WON'T pay the poorer ones, it's not in their interest to do so.
Not necessarily. Whoever has high carbon emissions should contribute to a fund that promotes carbon extraction. Not all poor countries practice carbon reduction.
It’s not compensation, it’s reparations.
NO
It’s called the greater good
Sounds like you want the US to keep bombing them compastionantly
What exactly would “poor” countries spend the money on that wouldn’t generate more greenhouse gases? Asking for US taxpayers. Name that product they would buy that doesn’t release carbon. I’ll wait. ⏰
As one of the sons of poor peoples, I do not ask for any compensation. I only ask the great countries to stop stealing our wealth.
“Poor” countries? Perhaps a better term is low economic income countries?
Energy Energy Latest News, Energy Energy Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: i newspaper - 🏆 8. / 89 Read more »
Source: SunScotNational - 🏆 49. / 63 Read more »
Source: ShropshireStar - 🏆 98. / 51 Read more »