Problem: Climate change
1) Our question is, who should pay for it?
2) What you might call climate change refugees raises the question of who is responsible for helping them in Zimbabwe. Jeremiah, what effects of climate change have you observed?
3) Who should bear the cost, and who should bear the burden of addressing climate change?
4) What country is the most significant global carbon emitter in total emissions today?
5) The argument is that rich countries are responsible for most carbon spewed into the heavens since the Industrial Revolution. They used most of the planet's carbon space or budget to become rich. So it is only fair that they the rich countries?
6) Do you consider China a rich or a developing country for this purpose?
7) I want to ask what you think of this carbon trading scheme arrangement.
8) What do you think here is the poll? Is global carbon trading ethical or unethical?
9) Nevertheless, where does the coercion take the hypothetical, where the US or Switzerland pay to replace all those polluting kerosene lamps and stoves in India? India is better off, its development is served, and the rich country can count those emissions reductions toward its target. Where is the coercion in that?
10) It commodifies, puts a price on carbon emissions, and is coercive. What do you say to Hannon?
11) Would you like to reply to this analogy between tradable emission permits, global carbon trading, and the buying of salvation in medieval days? Is that morally an apt analogy?
12) Suppose rich countries can, in effect, buy their way out of more demanding reductions in their emissions. What about the attitudes of solidarity that need to be cultivated to generate future cooperation on climate change? However, we still need to examine what attitudes are eroded or damaged by using a market mechanism in carbon trading.
13) We also need to change consumerist exploitative attitudes toward nature. What do you say to that argument?
14) If we can improve the living standards of our peers, why would we put the environment superior to humanity? Why would you care more about the needs of the environment than humanity?
15) How to deal with climate change?
16) Today, we must think through together very much as we have been doing here in the company of people from different countries and cultures worldwide.
17) Nevertheless, where is the coercion taken the hypothetical, where the US or Switzerland pays to replace all those polluting kerosene lamps and stoves in India? India is better off, its development is served, and the rich country can count those emissions reductions toward its target. Where is the coercion in that?
18) It commodifies, puts a price on carbon emissions, and is coercive. What do you say to Hannon?
19) Would you like to reply to this analogy between tradable emission permits, global carbon trading, and the buying of salvation in medieval days? Is that morally an apt analogy?
20) Suppose rich countries can buy their way out of more demanding reductions in their emissions. What about the attitudes of solidarity that need to be cultivated to generate future cooperation on climate change? However, we still need to examine what attitudes are eroded or damaged by using a market mechanism in carbon trading.
21) We must also try to change consumerist exploitative attitudes toward nature. What do you say to that argument?
22) If we can improve the living standards of our peers, why would we put the environment superior to humanity? Why would you care more about the needs of the environment than humanity?
23) How to deal with climate change?
24) today we must think through together very much as we have been doing here in the company of people from different countries from different cultures around the world.