Debate between development paradigm and environment paradigm

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than
saving natural resources, ...
Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than saving natural resources,
most of which are renewable anyway. We cannot expect developing nations to share the green
concerns of developed countries when they are faced with dire poverty and a constant battle for
survival.

No because...
We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have
put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case,
poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native peoples
nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will
turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing
countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

The industrialised worlds emphasis on green issues holds back developing

countries. Because this i...
The industrialised worlds emphasis on green issues holds back developing countries. Because
this is seen as interference in their affairs, it also contributes to a greater divide between the First
and Third worlds. Many also believe it is a deliberate attempt to stop possible economic
competitors. After all, the USA and EU already put high tariffs (import taxes) on products made
cheaply in developing countries (e.g. canned tomatoes, shoes) which could be sold in America or
Europe. By limiting the development of profitable but polluting industries like steel or oil refineries
we are forcing nations to remain economically backward.

No because...
No one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives. But we must insist on
sustainable development that combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth.
Earth cannot support unrestricted growth. Companies in developed countries already have higher
costs of production because of rules to protect the environment. It is unfair if they then see their
prices undercut by goods produced cheaply in developing countries at the cost of great pollution.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...
Economic development is vital for meeting the basic needs of the growing
populations of developing c...
Economic development is vital for meeting the basic needs of the growing populations of
developing countries. If we do not allow them to industrialise, these nations will have to bring in
measures to limit population growth just to preserve vital resources such as water.

No because...
Unchecked population growth has a negative impact on any nation, as well as on the whole
planet. Both the poverty and the environmental problems of sub-Saharan Africa are largely the
result of rapid population growth putting pressure on limited resources. At the same time China
has become wealthy while following a one-child per couple policy. Limiting population growth will
result in a higher standard of living and will preserve the environment.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict

environmental rules. The reality...
Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict environmental rules. The reality is
that for many nations such rules are not in their interests. For example, closing Chinas huge
Capital Iron and Steelworks, a major source of pollution, would cost 40 000 jobs. The equal
application of strict environmental policies would create huge barriers to economic progress, at a
risk to political stability.

No because...
Nations are losing more from pollution than they are gaining from industrialisation. China is a
perfect example. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic development have created serious,
chronic air and water pollution. This has increased health problems and resulted in annual losses
to farmers of crops worth billions of dollars. So uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the
environment, it is also makes no economic sense.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the

environment. Scientific advances ...
Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the environment. Scientific
advances have made industries much less polluting. And developing countries can learn from the
environmental mistakes of the developed worlds industrial revolution, and from more recent
disasters in communist countries such as China and the USSR. For example, efficient new
steelworks use much less water, raw materials and power, while producing much less pollution
than traditional factories. And nuclear generating plants can provide more energy than coal while
contributing far less to global warming. We are also exploring alternative, renewable types of
energy such as solar, wind and hydro-power.

No because...
Scientific progress has made people too confident in their abilities to control their environment. In
just half a century the worlds nuclear industry has had at least three serious accidents: Windscale
(UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), and Chernobyl (USSR, 1986). In addition, the nuclear
power industry still cannot store its waste safely. Hydro-power sounds great but damming rivers is
itself damaging to the environment. It also forces huge numbers of people off their land as in
Chinas 3 Gorges project.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to

demand that poorer nations...
It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to demand that poorer nations
make conservation their priority. After all, they became rich in the first place by destroying their
environment in the industrial revolution. Now that they have cut down their own trees, polluted
their water sources and poured billions of tons of carbon into the air, they are in no position to tell
others to behave differently. In any case, as countries become richer they become more
concerned about the environment, and can afford to do something about it. For developing
countries conservation can therefore wait until they are richer.

No because...
Looking after our fragile world has to be a partnership. Climate change will affect the whole planet,
not just the developed world. In fact it is likely to have particularly terrible effects on developing
countries as sea levels rise, deserts advance, and natural disasters become more common. It is
no use Europe trying to cut its emissions into the atmosphere if unchecked growth in China and
India leads to much greater overall pollution. Instead, developed countries need to transfer
greener technologies to the developing world, paying for environmental protection and making
sustainability a condition for aid.

Economic Development vs the Environment

Yes because...

The Green Revolution has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting
down more forests to p...
The Green Revolution has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to
provide more space for crops is no longer necessary. We now have the knowledge to feed the
worlds increasing population without harming the environment. Genetically modified crops can
also benefit the developing world by requiring much less water, fertiliser or pesticide use while
giving better yields. This is another example of economic development leading to environmental
benefits.

No because...
The Green Revolution is threatening the biodiversity of the Third World by replacing native seeds
with hybrids. We do not know what the long-term environmental or economic consequences will
be. We do know that in the short run, such hybrid crops can cause environmental problems by
crowding out native plants and the wildlife which relies on them. The farmer growing hybrid crops
must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved to plant the following years
crops. Farmers using hybrid seeds in what was the richest part of India went bankrupt. As a result,
fertile lands lay idle and unploughed, resulting in droughts and desertification.
First of all, We must maintain the environmental development first because of if you planting some trees at
the traveling areas or the foreigners likes to visit, also that also makes income, and other people from
another country will come into our country more and moreSo IF you developed Environmental first, it will
also help the economic too! because you get income from foriegners and finally you can donated to poor
country and also develop our country..

economy not only means finance..

It deals with the industrial setup of a country and the factories.
Industries clearly pollute the environment by chemical waste in water and air.
Natural resources are sustainable and essential for man kind, so definitely ENVIRONMENT stands above
ECONOMY..!!

1. 1. NORTH AND SOUTH TODAY: WORLDS APART

2. 2. THE GLOBAL SOUTH: ZONE OF TURMOIL Many of the people in the global south faces poverty,
war and tyranny.
3. 3. THE GLOBAL SOUTH: ZONE OF TURMOIL Although democracy has spread to much of the global
south since the 1980s, the commitments of some of these governments to regular elections and human
rights are fragile. Many global south countries lack well-developed domestic market economies based
on entrepreneurship and private enterprise.
4. 4. Global South countries have been unable to evolve an indigenous technology appropriate to their
own resources and have been dependent on powerful Global North multinational corporations (MNCs) to
transfer technical know-how. This means that research and development expenditures are directed
toward solutions of the Global Norths problems, with technological advances seldom meeting the needs
of the Global South.
5. 5. Life is a struggle for those who live in extreme poverty. Poverty is a force that robs you of
confidence.steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination and psychologically
cripples, (Mazumdar, 2009:34)
6. 6. GLOBAL SOUTH AND NORTH: AN INTERNATIONAL CLASS DIVIDE Characteristic Developing
Global South Developed Global North Number of countries 144 66 Population(millions) 5, 629 1, 069
Land Area (thousands of sq. km) 98, 797 35, 299 GNI ($ billions) $ 15, 649 $42, 415 Gross national
income for each person $2, 780 $ 42, 415 Imports ($ billions) $ 5, 503 $13, 710 Exports ($ billions) $ 5,
938 $ 13, 710 Women holding seats in parliament (%) 18 % 22% Life expectancy at birth 67 80 Infant
mortality rate per 1, 000 births 50 6
7. 7. GLOBAL SOUTH AND NORTH: AN INTERNATIONAL CLASS DIVIDE Characteristic Developing
Global South Developed Global North Access to improved sanitation (% o population) 55% 100% Paved
roads (%) 24% 87% Personal computers for each 100 people 5 68 Internet Users for each 100 people 15
69 Population covered by cellular networks (%) 76% 99% Daily newspapers for each 1, 000 people 59
261 Electric power consumption for each person (kwh) 1, 478 9, 753
8. 8. According to criteria used by the UN Economic and Social Council, forty-nine countries currently
comprise the least developed countries (LDCs) of the Global South. They have gross incomes (GNI)
per capita of under $900 per year, and their overwhelmingly rural populations depend on agriculture for
subsistence and frequently rely on barter in their economic exchanges. These low-income countries are
not significant participants in the global market.
9. 9. Their meager exports are largely confined to inexpensive primary products, including food stuff
(cocoa, coffee, and tea), minerals, hides, and timber. Because they consume most of what they produce,
theirs is typically a subsistence economy, and the prospects for change are dim, because most of these
countries have been bypassed by direct foreign investment and ignored by foreign aid donors.
10. 10. Geographic location also hampers the economic development in Global South countries.
Landlocked developing countries that lack navigable rivers or efficient road and rail networks are highly
disadvantaged due to the expenses they face in accessing world markets.
11. 11. Some small island developing states are burdened with high transportation costs as well, largely
due to the remoteness from major global markets.
12. 12. INTERNAL FACTORS: CLASSICAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THEORYS INTERPRETATION
Liberal economic development theories of modernization emerged in the early post-World War II era.
They argued that the major barriers to development were posed by the Global South countries own
internal characteristics.
13. 13. Productivity remained low due to managerial inefficiency, a lack of modern technology, and
inadequate transportation and communication infrastructures. To overcome these barriers, most
classical theorists recommended that the wealthy countries supply various missing components of
development, such as investment capital through foreign aid or private foreign direct investment.
14. 14. Once sufficient capital was accumulated to promote growth, these theorists predicted that its
benefits would eventually trickle down to broad segments of society. Policy Walt R. Rostow, an
economic historian and US policy maker formalized this theory in his influential book The Stages of
Economic Growth (1960). He predicted that traditional societies beginning the path of development
would inevitably pass through various stages by means of the free market and would eventually take off
to become similar to the mass consumption societies of the capitalist North.
15. 15. EXTERNAL FACTORS: DEPENDENCY THEORYS INTERPRETATION Emphasized external
factors Development is not a linear process that all societies uniformly follow Dependency theory- a
view of development that the leading capitalist states dominate and exploit the poorer countries on the
periphery of the world economy.
16. 16. Its central proposition is that the structure of the capitalist world economy is based on a division of
labor between a dominant core and a subordinate periphery. As a result of colonialism, the global South
countries that make up the periphery have been forced into an economic role whereby they export raw
materials and import finished goods.
17. 17. Maintain that global inequalities cannot be reduced so long as developing countries continue to
specialize in primary products for which there are often numerous competing suppliers and limited
demand. Argues that countries in the Global South are vulnerable to cultural penetration by outside
forces, which saturate them with values from other societies.
18. 18. Once cultural penetration occurs, locals who embrace foreign values may gain economically from
the ties that they forge with the governments and corporations doing business in their country.
19. 19. Dualism refers to the existence of two separate economic and social sectors operating side by side.
Dual societies typically have rural, impoverished, and neglected sector operating alongside an urban,
developing or advanced sectorbut with little interaction between the two.
20. 20. Although dependency theory has great appeal within the Global South, it cannot easily explain the
emergence of many people call newly industrialized countries (NICs), members of the Global South that
have begun exporting manufactured goods to the Global North.
21. 21. Dependent development-describes the industrialization of peripheral areas in a system otherwise
dominated by the Global North. The term suggest the possibility of either growing or declining
 prosperity, but not outside the confines of a continuing dominance-dependence relationship between
North and South.

Something must be done; anything must be done, whether it works or not expressed by Bob Geldof during
the Live8 concert, this feeling strongly resonates within many development and environmental circles,
particularly in relation to the broad, complex and contested structure of international development. The
challenge for advocates, policymakers and institutions is finding what works. It is often easier to formulate
short-term interventions focussed on providing immediate relief than to identify. It is easier too to construct
policies based on existing perceptions of what is needed and received wisdoms on poverty instead of ones
that reflect meaningfully the experience of living in poverty. Never has this flaw been more conspicuous than
in matters related to environment.

Under the dominant neoliberal ideology, the environment is seen as a free commodity, open to exploitation
for economic growth and prosperity. And as environment is designated as a public sphere, it becomes
incredibly difficult to pinpoint a definite authority to address the aftermath of environmental degradation. By
and large, this responsibility has been the burden of developing countries with the implicit assumption that
the third world, with its lions share of poor and uneducated population, is responsible for the thoughtless
and haphazard destruction of environment. However, beyond the buzzwords such as sustainability, are we
really on track to a healthier and greener environment? Or are we witnessing, even more vividly, the unequal
power relations of the world and the prevailing market principles of economic growth and privatisation?

The Brundtland Commission (1987) issued a definition of sustainable development as meeting the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This view has
been widely accepted in the field of environment sustainability, yet it is difficult to develop universal
standards of what is meant by needs. In developed countries, with flourishing service industries and
consumerism at its peak, it is questionable to suggest that only needs are being fulfilled. So, should the
worlds poor sacrifice their natural resources for a wealthier population? Or should our understanding of
sustainability be remodelled?

The turn of the century saw renewed global political commitments culminate in the creation of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a blueprint for development highly focussed on global South. MDG 7
tackles environmental sustainability, primarily through the integration of principles of sustainable
development into domestic policy. However, critics say that MDG 7 fails to recognise the way in which the
global financial system operates, and thus overlooks the transnational dimension of the world economy. Little
has changed about the trading relationship between the global North and South, as they both remain
importers and exporters respectively of primary commodities. And with a large number of multinational
companies operating directly or indirectly within the developing world, should we be focussing our efforts on
governments alone? Surely companies too should adhere to eco-friendly rules and regulations.

When the consequences of the global environmental degradation manifest themselves in the form of rising
sea levels, melting glaciers, and an unbalanced ecosystem, how should we respond? This is one of the most
pressing questions of our time. In fact, many of these changes have already begun and judging by the
reaction to date, it appears that for many governments, organisations and individuals, action on these issues
is still not a priority.

Instead of debating who has contributed the most to environmental degradation, we should be planning our
collective response. Ultimately, the consequences will not be restricted to a certain region or country. So, isnt
it high time to take global responsibility?

Developed Countries Have a Higher Obligation to Combat Climate Change

- Pro-
Developed Countries had had the privilege of polluting the environment back in the past, since the Industrial Revolution to only the
just recent start of the 21st century. The current pollution that is being a problem and causing global warming is the result of the
developed countries industrial development. Saying that developing countries are making trouble with environmental pollution is not a
reasonable or responsible attitude. They have done the same in the past; worse maybe, but surely not less. If developed countries are
not willing to help and support developing countries in their development so that they dont generate further pollution then they
should be taking action to solve the current global warming, something that they brought, rather than pushing the responsibility to
developing countries.
Developed countries are the most developed and the wealthiest countries on the face of Earth. They have the technology and the
wealth to solve the issue of global warming, rather then developing countries. Developing countries are called developing because
they lack the technology and the capital to put up better infrastructure, to do further research work, or to produce something of high-
technology; everything that developed countries can do. Being ahead of all the other countries and so having the time, the resource and
the brains they should take greater action and feel the need to take higher obligation to lessen the consequences of global warming.
Taking into consideration that the current situation is the result of their past actions, developed countries should take a step forward
and take action to eradicate global warming and its consequences. Developing countries should however, try to lessen the pollution as
much as possible so that the problem does not get worse. Developed countries should be willing to help the other countries in times of
need, such as in adopting new technology. Together, developed countries and developing countries will be able to solve the problem of
global warming, but only when they cooperate. Cooperation and distribution of duties to combat global warming is the key to solving
the problem.
Tags: Climate Change
Submitted by kjfiu at: August 26, 2009
http://www.ondayone.org/node/4916
Submitted by M.S at: August 2, 2009
Global Warming is a problem facing the human race, therefore everyone on this planet should take responsibility and start with himself
not only governments. we as individuals have a major roll in solving this problem, or at least preventing it from getting worse. This
could happen by some changes in our lifestyle. People nowadays tend to over-use their cars when they actually could use public
transportation. Besides, the efficient use of power would have a positive effect on this problem. By saying that I do not deny the main
roll by governments. Firstly, governments around the world should educate thier people about the problem and make them aware of
what they could do. Secondly, which is absolutely crucial, governments should push on research more to find possible alternatives of
power resources that could be environmentally friendly and could meet the increase in the use of power
Submitted by Williams at: June 7, 2009
Global Warming Problem observed mostly in developed countries i.e. air pollution and toxic methane and hydrocarbon groups.so please
kindly concentrate on Agriculture Development mostly in U.S. A. And India, U.k.To overcome this Global Warming Problem kindly take
the suggestion of Environmental Engineering Dept.

Conservation of Resources
We live on a planet that is a treasure trove surrounded by empty cosmos. While we don't know how many
planets like Earth are out there, we do know there are none particularly close by. Even getting to the nearest star
would take hundreds or thousands of years. Our planet contains liquid water, oxygen, a moderate temperature
that doesn't vary dangerously, and a variety of environments. We have forests, swamps, deserts, mountains,
grasslands, and enormous oceans. Our planet contains abundant resources. But it doesn't contain unlimited
resources. We only have so much freshwater available to us, and only have so much coal, oil, and gas to burn.
There are only so many trees that we can cut down before we run out and only so many metals we can extract.

Our planet contains many amazing resources

Living on such a planet, it's an inescapable truth that we need to conserve the resources that we have available
to us. If we selfishly take everything we can as quickly as we can, the human race will eventually cease to exist.
Thankfully, some resources are renewable. For example, we can keep taking energy from the sun to create
electricity for as long as the sun still shines. And water will keep evaporating from our huge oceans forever, even
if they can be hard to get that water to where it is needed. Trees even grow continually (if rather slowly), and can
be planted in huge numbers. So, the conservation of resources isn't just about using less, it is also about using
our resources smartly.

The energy resources of the sun are not likely to

run out anytime soon

If we don't, we end up with problems. For example, there are many places in the world dealing with water
shortages. In California, water shortages are a yearly problem, and even despite importing huge amounts of
water from out-of-state, it always seems to be a struggle. In parts of Africa, it can be a matter of life and death.

In parts of Tanzania, the only way to get water is to

dig a hole in the ground. Such places are highly
 sensitive to drought.

This problem is only getting worse thanks to climate change causing dry areas of the world to get even drier.
Through climate change, the Earth is getting warmer because of the greenhouse gases that humans have
released into the atmosphere. We've cut down trees and burned them, releasing even more greenhouse gases.
This heating of the planet makes issues of water supply even worse, and the more resources we use the worse
the issue gets.

So, if the matter is this serious, how do we properly conserve resources into the future? And whose responsibility
is it?

Responsibility for Conservation

Because of the role of Western countries causing much of the climate change we seen so far, many developing
countries do not believe the responsibility should fall heavily on them. After all, why should Brazil not cut down
the rainforests, when Europeans cut down the vast majority of the forest that once existed on their continent?
And why should China not burn coal and pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, when developed
countries did exactly that during their industrial revolutions? This is what built the luxurious life that Western
countries enjoy!

The problem with this view, as fair as it may seem, is that climate change is irreversible and action is needed
worldwide for the process to be stopped. Putting the burden on developing countries might not be fair, but
something has to be done to conserve our resources and prevent further damage to the environment. If we don't,
droughts will get worse, whole countries will be under water, and rainforests will be lost (causing even more
climate change).

Deforestation of the rainforests is a real problem

This planet belongs to all of us, and so the responsibility lies with all of us.
Taking Action
The only chance that we have for success when it comes to conserving our resources and protecting what we
have on earth is if action is taken on every level. Governments need to take action, whether they represent
developed or developing countries (though developed countries can help fund developing countries to make it
easier for them to make changes). The most likely way that this could be implemented would be through an
international agreement, ideally one that is legally binding. That way, countries that don't comply can have
consequences applied to them.

Who Has Moral Responsibility for Climate Change?

VANESA CASTAN BROTO , MAR 6 2013, 6092 VIEWS

Responsibility is a hot topic in climate change debates. Who is to blame for climate change? Who has
the duty to do something about it? These questions are particularly relevant in discussions about
climate change mitigation, that is, about who should reduce their carbon emissions and by how much.
In his address to the COP 18 in Doha, in December 2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, stated
that the developed world should bear most of the responsibility for mitigation because the climate
change phenomenon has been caused by the industrialization of the developed world (The Guardian,
2012). In contrast, renowned climate change economist Lord Nicholas Stern argued that developing
countries are now responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions and therefore, regardless of their
historical contributions, need to adopt ambitious carbon reduction objectives (Harvey, 2012).

Because these arguments are entwined with the attribution of praise or blame for action or lack
thereof, they can be framed as a question about moral responsibility (following Eshleman, 2009).
Climate change poses a deep moral challenge because it concerns a problem caused by those who
consume most but whose consequences will be mostly felt by those who are most deprived (Jamieson,
2010). The question here is whether responsibility should be adjudicated on the merits of an action or
on its consequences. Ban Ki-moon asks developed countries to take initiative to address climate
change on the grounds of their historical responsibility, because it is the right thing to do. In contrast,
Lord Stern is urging emerging economies to take such responsibility on the grounds of the potentially
catastrophic consequences that we may expect should they decide to do otherwise.

The attribution of moral responsibility to an action has most often been discussed in relation to
individuals because it requires not only finding an agent, but also establishing the agents intention,
capacity, freedom and knowledge to do such action. Indeed, much research on climate change has
approached the problem of responsibility for emissions abatement from the point of view of individual
responsibility. This can be seen, for example, in studies that examine the basis for establishing
personal carbon budgets (e.g. Roberts and Thumim, 2006) or in those that seek to explain why
individuals do not perceive climate change as a moral imperative to change their actions (e.g.
Markowitz and Shariff, 2012). However, a strictly analytical take based upon individual responsibility
ideas may lead to the conclusion that, since climate change is a problem of many hands (many
people share in the actions leading to it), nobody is (in some sense) responsible for climate change
(van de Poel et al, 2012; p. 51). There are good reasons to reject this line of reasoning. First, stating
that nobody is responsible for climate change leads to paralysis. Second, empirical evidence of public
and private initiatives in distant corners of the world (e.g. Bulkeley and Castn Broto, 2012) suggests
that both individuals and groups are actively taking responsibility for climate change mitigation.

Climate change can also be approached as a problem of collective moral responsibility. Looking at
environmental issues as emerging within existing systems of production and social relations has led to
a critique of individual-based understandings of environmental responsibility (e.g. Castn Broto, 2012;
Agyeman and Evans, 2004). These arguments resonate with Ban Ki-moons warning to his audience at
the COP18 in Doha: we, collectively, are the problem (Ki-moon, 2012). However, the responsibility of
an agent is judged on an action and its intentions, but only individuals, not groups, can formulate
intentions. Establishing collective responsibility without invoking personal intentions requires alternative
understandings of responsibility.

The discussion on collective moral responsibility distinguishes between organized groups (e.g. a
government, a corporation, an NGO) and random collections of individuals (e.g. a group of bystanders,
a group of people playing on a beach) (see Held, 1970). In between these two extremes, there is high
diversity in the ways in which groups and individuals organize themselves. May (1992) argues that it is
possible to ascribe collective responsibility for action to a group when the result is only possible by the
combined actions of the individuals in that group. Thus, collective responsibility appears to be
appropriate in cases involving organized groups, whose organizational goals may be read as
intentions, but less so in cases involving random collections of individuals. The loose group of citizens,
consumers, business, governments and civil society organizations who may have responsibility for
climate change resembles more the latter than the former. How can we attribute collective
responsibility to such a disorganized group of institutions and individuals?

Held (1970; p.94) argued: when the action called for in a given situation is obvious to the reasonable
person and when the expected outcome of the action is clearly favorable, a random collection of
individuals may be held responsible for not taking a collective action. In other words, if a random
collection of individuals can act to prevent an incoming damage, they are responsible for it. This
argument renders all interested parties in the climate change debate morally responsible to prevent the
potentially catastrophic events that climate change could bring in the future, as long as the action
called for is obvious to the reasonable person.

Practical plausibility is a condition for collective responsibility (May, 1990). Responsibility depends on
the group knowing what they should be doing. In the case of attributing climate change responsibilities
what is to be done is also a matter for debate. Advocates of technical fixes, behavioral changes or
political and economic transitions routinely seek to define competing courses for action. When the
course for action is not clear, such as in this case, Held (1970; p. 94) argues that any random collection
of individuals could at least be held morally responsible for not forming itself into an organized group
capable of deciding which action to take.
If we, collectively, are the problem, we are also responsible for organizing ourselves into institutional
structures capable of dealing with this problem. Thus, if the annual conference of parties is an attempt
to coordinate global action for climate change, then any attempts by countries to limit or hinder the
capacity of action of the COPs could be regarded as failing to take responsibility for climate change,
whether this is from industrialized countries, emerging economies or poorer nations. Yet, the COP is
not only an instrument to develop institutions to deal with climate change; it is also a ruthless
diplomatic exercise. Different parties have different bargaining power. Not all countries enter the
negotiations on an equal footing and hence, not all parties should be blamed for their results (less so
those who are not or do not feel represented at the negotiations).

The argument of historical responsibility may help considering the differentiated responsibilities of
negotiating parties. While this may not amount to reparation, industrialized countries- their
governments and citizens- should take responsibility for climate change not only on the grounds of the
actual emissions they have physically emitted but also because the have created models of
consumerism that have led to the depletion of carbon sinks. On these grounds, responsibility also
means investing resources in finding alternative sustainable development paths, practical and
plausible. Although these actions may play a key role in understanding what is to be done they should
be understood as relating to the responsibility of developed countries and not to the overall
responsibility of all parties. They should be independent from attempts to organize collective action for
climate change globally.

Overall, we can attribute varying degrees of responsibility to different parties but the sense of collective
responsibility remains. The problem of collective responsibility for climate change is not confined to the
sphere of government, as it pertains to both the material economy and the broader society whose
values underpin existing production and consumption patterns. However, this collective responsibility
cannot simply be distributed among all individuals because there are great differences in terms of
access and use of carbon sinks and capacity to act (not only between countries, but also within
countries). The good news is that evidence suggests that multiple actors, disenchanted with the
international regime of climate change governance, are taking spontaneous initiatives for climate
change. This is evident in cities, where local governments, companies, citizen groups and NGOs are
trying out new forms of sustainable living (e.g. Bulkeley et al, 2011). Often, such initiatives are
characterized by a higher degree of technical and social experimentation, from piloting new
technologies to developing innovative partnerships (Bulkeley and Castn Broto, 2012). While they
appear within a fragmented landscape of climate change action, such experimental initiatives also
provide spaces for the intervention of multiple and competing interests.

The bad news is that these initiatives may be limited to address the problem of collective responsibility
unless they can lead to organized, collective actions capable of dealing with climate change challenges
in the short to medium term. Skeptics may rightly point at the limited impact that these experimental
initiatives have had in reducing actual emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, spontaneous and
purposive actions to reduce carbon emissions will help in developing new values and attitudes and
thus, each of them represents an attempt to engage with our collective responsibility for climate
change.