Cross-posted at National Wildlife Action
Leaders from developing countries, notably Brazil and China (although I am unsure if they still qualify as "developing"), have called for rich, developed nations to take the lead in cutting global warming pollution. This has set off a small row reminiscent of the days when Kyoto was being discussed in America.
Why should America fight global warming when nations such as China and India do not have to? Why should developing nations curb their progress toward economic viability to right a wrong perpetuated on the world by already developed nations? This is an argument that has been, for the most part, dormant for the last few years. Some state, on either side fo the argument, that it is a matter of fairness, but the problem of global warming is not one to be scuttled do the squabbles over fairness.
The consequences of global warming loom over our future generations. When former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker states that fighting global warming will help our economy, it makes the notion that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will "cripple our economy" rather over the top. If our own economic viability will not be harmed (let alone the possibility of it being helped), shouldn't our stewardship of the Earth transcend petty squabbles over fairness?