Skip to content

$$$ – $ = $$$$$$

by on November 22, 2013

$$$ – $ = $$$$$$

From → Uncategorized

  1. emilylangan permalink

    To be honest, I don’t see wealthy countries taking responsibility for “natural” disasters in developing countries any time soon. I think a big part of this is that we like to think we are helping them out of the goodness of our hearts (i.e. texting $10 to the red cross at the time of the most recent disaster, or buying the Lady Gaga album that supports the recent earthquake in Japan). This way, if our government actually paid for rebuilding of these developing countries in accordance with how much they contributed to global warming, it would be more of a chore opposed to “feel good” charity. I also don’t think that wealthy nations would ever really go along with this until global warming was 100% proved to cause these disasters, which is probably not going to happen for a long time.

  2. hagerbridget permalink

    This article brings to mind the World Systems theory. According to this theory, the core countries attempt to destabilize peripheral countries to continue domination of core through trade. This is a system of dominate vs. dominated. Therefore, regarding aid to the periphery, core countries would lose out on their “domination.” How exactly can we expect core countries like the United States to take that risk? As a nation, would we ever be willing enough to risk our status as an elite core country? Would this be the end of the World Systems theory?

  3. The rich nations should be required to bear the cost of disasters exacerbated by global warming since we are the main contributors to global warming. Affluent nations make up roughly 28% of the global population but contribute 75% of the total CO2 emissions. We cause the majority of the damage, but are the least impacted. The United nations need to institute a policy that makes affluent countries rectify for their past actions. I read a paper for another class that suggested putting a 1% tax on natural resources consumption, because for an affluent person, that really isn’t a huge difference fiscal difference, but the result of that tax would net roughly $300 billion that could go towards relief efforts. Also by taxing natural resources, it will make consumers in affluent countries more aware of their spending and cut back consumption. Making the rich nations bear the cost of disasters exacerbated by global warming is the just and moral thing to do, but unfortunately, it probably will not happen anytime soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: