Vote totals:
Yes:
100%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE TIED TO GREEN DEVELOPMENT
SHOULD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE TIED TO GREEN DEVELOPMENT
The Environment is more important than development
Environmental disasters do not discriminate, they strike the US, they strike Bangladesh, they strike at random. However, it is usually the poorer countries who are the worst affected when flooding and other disasters come to them because they do not always have the emergency funds or infastructure to cope. Therefore, there is no point in a country trying to develop when global warming is increasing the risk of their economies toppling right down again.
This premise assumes that any environmental disaster is a roll of the dice and a random strike on earth, different areas are more and less prone to environmental disasters, should they have higher green development goals just because its in there interest, in which case why do we need to threaten to cut aid to countries to protect themselves.
Also it is stupid to suggest that the only reason that environmental disasters happen is because the local population has been environmentally friendly, in Egypt flooding happens annually, volcanoes and earthquakes are in no way linked to greenhouse gasses or deforestation. On top of that, it is in no way ethical to cut aid to a country that has suffered an environmental disaster because they weren’t "green" enough, the environment is important but people take priority.
SHOULD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE TIED TO GREEN DEVELOPMENT
Unless incentives exist, nothing will happen
The richest countries can afford to experiment with setting up wind turbines and investigating solar energy, when a nation is developing its main priority is saving money, hence a greater reliance on fossil fuels or else deforestation. By incentivising with money, it suddenly becomes affordable to explore greener options.
So in essence what you’re doing is taking its aid money that should be spend on food and education for the population and forcing them to spend it on "green" forms of energy, most of which will come from more developed countries. This is highly unethical and grossly unfair that countries who are struggling to feed their populous should be instead paying for more efficient power plants when the problem of global warming lies with the richer countries.
SHOULD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE TIED TO GREEN DEVELOPMENT
It is up to state how it chooses to use its resources
If resources given to or created by developing coutries are not renewable then surely they will face the same problems the more econically developed countries face now. Yet when these developing counties fall into crisis over unrenewable resources, as all countries will eventually based on their actions now, they will not have the financial capacity to deal with these problems or to develop ‘green’ resources. So, by introducing green development now, it will actually help and save money for the developing countries in the future.
How dare the hypocritical Western nations come and tell other countries what they should be doing to offset the US/European carbon emission? The developing countries know what is best for their people, and they shouldn’t be forced into diverting money into green projects when their people are dying of AIDs and there isn’t adequate healthcare. Only when a country is ‘developed’ should it have a financial obligation towards greener fuels and energy.
SHOULD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE TIED TO GREEN DEVELOPMENT
You are punishing the innocent
Less developed countries are dependant on aid for the survival and improvement in the standard of life of the poorer sections of their populations, however those who make the power stations and cut down forests are the richer population or outside investors who do not rely on aid. So you are letting poor people suffer reduced levels of healthcare and education (either through a loss of aid or a redirection of aid to invest in environmental projects) because those who are not dependant on aid decide to keep developing using means that are not environmentally friendly.
