Sense of Entitlement 101 –
For all its prosperity, he said, Saudi Arabia will still need help in developing new industries and job sources for its growing population.
Mr. Sabban said a large coalition of developing countries was ready to reject the treaty language if industrialized nations rejected the idea of compensating countries whose economies were harmed.
“It is like the tobacco industry asking for compensation for lost revenues as a part of a settlement to address the health risks of smoking,” said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The worst of this racket is that they have held up progress on supporting adaptation funding for the most vulnerable for years because of this demand.”
If you don’t want what we have, for the good of the world we ALL live in, I want to be compensated so that I’ll still be fucking rich without having to work for another source of wealth.
If it is all about using the money for diversification, then pray tell why when they were already bringing in so much money from oil over the years, they didn’t use that wealth to plan and diversify then.
In the context of Singapore:
Hey World, because you guys stopped shipping stuff, Singapore’s economy is hurt because our port is underused. You guys need to compensate us for loss of income because of your decision to stop shipping things.
I also have a product which because you do not want, I must be compensated for.
All joking aside though, a business model where you get paid when people don’t buy what you’re selling is pretty awesome business if you can get it..
Metafilter discussion here.
Some further thoughts:
The problem is really about politicians trying to get countries to do a group hug, but every single one of them wants to actually walk outside the circle and fuck the other politicians in the ass.
The truth is, countries should just be responsible global citizens within their own boundaries.
Industrialized countries once committed the current sins of developing countries, sins which allow them to be where they are now, which is industrialized. Developing countries aspire for that status, and it is naive at best to assume they will give those aspirations up by not taking the way previously taken (damn the consequences) and hubris at worse for politicians from industrialized countries to think they have the right to bully developing countries into towing the line.
The truth is, the cost to the environment is difficult to be measured and rarely factored into the cost of development. The best way going forward is not for industrialized countries to say do this instead of doing that (which was what we did, but please forget about it) but for those who already have the ability (i.e. industrialized nations) to create financially cheaper ways that are also just as effective as the old way for developing countries to get industrialized (although frankly, that might not be the best goal around) and progress without harming the environment.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Leaders from around the world will gather in Copenhagen in December 2009 for the latest talks held on implementing a 1992 treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The goal is a climate treaty that would go beyond the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a climate change agreement that set emissions targets for industrialized nations. Many of those goals have not been met, and the United States never ratified the accord.
Although the United Nations has held a big climate meeting each year since 1995, the 12-day gathering in Copenhagen is extraordinary for many reasons. The emissions reduction commitments that countries made under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012. And while the Bush administration was seen by many countries as an obstacle to achieving a global accord, President Obama has declared that he wants to be a leader in environmental issues.
A 200-page document, which serves as a starting point for treaty negotiations, outlines proposals for cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases by rich countries and limiting the growth of gases in the developing world. It also discusses ways of preventing deforestation, which is linked to global warming, and of providing financing for poorer nations to help them adapt to warmer temperatures.
But many environmental advocates and politicians suggest that not enough has been done to winnow down those options. Representatives of poor countries complain that developed nations have not made an adequate commitment to reduce their emissions.
The United States and China jointly produce 40 percent of the world’s heat-trapping emissions.
The United States never joined the 1997 Kyoto accord, the first major attempt to limit emissions in a global treaty, partly because quickly developing and increasingly competitive countries like China and India were not required to set emissions reduction goals of their own.
China and India, meanwhile, have said that the industrialized world, which has been responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions to date, must commit to far deeper cuts before negotiations at Copenhagen can succeed.
A show of resolve by the United States about doing its part to combat global warming is considered critical to the outcome of the Copenhagen talks. Yet the prospect of action by the United States Senate on climate change appeared dim before the Copenhagen talks, with Congress mired in the fight over health care and Democrats divided on climate change measures.
Regardless of Congressional action, the Obama administration announced in early October 2009 that it was planning new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial factories.
Good or bad, any climate agreement that comes out of the December meeting will bear Copenhagen’s name. And the tenor of the meetings is likely to reflect Denmark’s sober brand of environmentalism. The government has proposed new fines to keep activists in check during the meetings – $2,000 for breaking through a police cordon or wearing a mask during demonstrations.