Posted at 10.08.2018
As we realize that most of the least-developed countries (LDC) or called developing countries are in the areas with tough natural conditions. To some extent, poor natural resources limit those countries improvements. It is not the same as the least-developed countries that the developed countries have beneficial physical and environmental advantages. They may have emitted greenhouse gases for over 200years with no limitations. The common global temperature during the 1980s exceeded that of another decade since reliable temp recording began a century before, and 1990 was the warmest calendar year on record (Hansen, 1991). The consensus among climate researchers on the threshold marker for dangerous environment change that consensus recognizes 2C (3. 6F) as an acceptable upper-bound (UNDP, 2008). The issues above make clear the global warming problem is becoming more serious and threat human being success in the 21st hundred years. And the first dimension to drop the global warming is reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Therefore, we've placed difficult in front of the least-developed countries. How do they balance development and reduction of carbon emission is a major problem. Therefore, I think the reduction of carbon emission is the most serious obstacle to development faced by most least-developed countries in the 21st century. In this newspaper, I discuss this problem from two factors: the first is the internal causes of large carbon emission, and the other is the conflicts with developed countries on reducing of carbon emission.
The global warming seems like a collective problem which encountered by all folks on the planet. However, for different passions both of the developed country and least-developed country are not willing to reduce their carbon emission. Although both of the two camps face the same problem, they still involve some conflicts are internal of them. Because, restricting the emission of greenhouse gases will constraint the introduction of a country in some degrees. At the meanwhile, the reduction emission of greenhouse gases has been becoming a hot potato.
In the least-developed countries, if agricultural output were greatly reduced by local climate change, the price of living would grow by one or two percent, and at a time when per capita income will probably have doubled. In producing countries, in contrast, as much as a third of GNP and half the populace currently depends on agriculture. They could still be vulnerable to climate change for quite some time to come (Schelling, 1997). However, agriculture contributes only a tiny percentage-three percent in the United States-of nationwide income. But agriculture is basically really the only sector of the economy affected by weather (Schelling, 1997). So the growing countries will concern more about the consequences of local climate change on agriculture, if the developed countries have large emission of greenhouse gases which makes the climate becoming worse and worse.
Another problem for the least-developed countries is the fantastic amount of inhabitants. The large population will have more usage of carbon productions. Quite simply, larger population will cause more emission of greenhouse gases. For such amount of people, the developing countries will make a big price on the improvement of environment. So where the bucks originates from is problems. Furthermore, a big population will cause poverty that will cause greater waste products of resources and bigger emission of greenhouse gases.
For the developed countries, the problems are more complex. Since the start of the industrial trend the concentration of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas influenced by man's activities, has increased by 25 percent (Bongaarts, 1992). The developed countries have high level of industrialization which means they have got very big emission of greenhouse gases. Bongaarts' article provides evidence that in 1985 per capita CO2 emission from the developed world was more than five times higher than in the developing world. It appears the developed countries have fewer problems be encountered than the growing countries, because the developed countries have in essence eradicated poverty in their countries. However, it isn't all the case, because the United Nations Framework Convention on Environment Change (UNFCCC) asks the contracting countries to fulfill their obligations. Plus the responsibilities of the developed countries are providing the fund assistances to the growing countries. But several developed countries will to provide fund assistance to the producing countries, because it would impact those countries' GDP in a certain level. Therefore, the least-developed countries will become much harder on lowering the carbon emission without the assistance from the developed countries.
Also the least-developed countries are lost in the copy of carbon emissions from the developed countries. For instance, almost all the world's MP3 players are created in China, where the key electricity source is coal. Developing a single MP3 player produces about 17 pounds of planet-warming skin tightening and into the atmosphere. Carbon leakageјthis is the idea that countries can reduce their own emissions by sending dirty industries abroad. Exactly the same countries may still transfer the completed goods from the growing world, creating a predicament in which global carbon emissions surge, even as individual nations meet their targets (Spencer, 2007). For the least-developed countries, on the top, their GDP has increased, but actually their environment was harmed permanently.
So here both of the least-developed countries and developed countries are turning the central to the arrangement which can offer the conflicts of greenhouse gases emission, cash, and spread the obligations. The suggested measurement distributed by Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the US says "the planet urgently needs to step up action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized countries need to make deeper emission reductions. There has to be further engagement of expanding countries, as well as incentives for them to limit their emissions while safeguarding economic growth and efforts to eliminate poverty. "(UNDP, 2007) Although Ban's words give the suggested solutions to the global warming, he doesn't give specific criteria for the developed countries. Either, this is actually the bargaining subject matter in Copenhagen Climate Talks.
China, India and other producing countries are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol, because they did not have large-scale emissions of greenhouse gases in the industrialization which triggered by the existing global climate change. However, some critics argued that China, India, and other large developing countries will soon end up being the large-scale greenhouse gas emissions countries. Also, if the Kyoto Protocol doesn't limit these countries who are outside the treaty now, it cannot achieve greenhouse gas reductions, and even accelerate the warming because it can be done that developed countries will move their carbon-intensive business outdoors to the producing countries. Including the developed country committed to a producing country, and develops their carbon-intensive economy in the growing country which equals the developed country transfers their carbon emissions to the developing country. Even though the treaty allows the developed countries can buy the carbon emissions from the expanding countries, the developed countries would prefer to investment because the expenses of labor are cheaper and the environment of their countries will not be polluted. But for the producing countries, these types of investments most likely harms with their development in the long-run.
As conclusion, although it is difficult to acquire a balance between reduction of carbon emission and development for the least-developed countries, however the lasting development is a long-run plan for each country. Within the brief run, the investment on the improvement of technology to lessen carbon emission will be paid in the future. And either developed countries or developing countries should improve international assistance because we have a same aim for, and I hope the farce of Copenhagen won't do it again itself in the future.