At the upcoming climate conference to be held in Dubai, ways to moderate global warming and the need to compensate the affected countries, especially island countries and countries in Africa, will be discussed again. Promises of compensation have already been given, but have not yet been fulfilled, and the question arises whether paying compensation is enough?
At the upcoming climate conference that will be held in Dubai, they will again discuss ways to moderate global warming and the need to compensate the affected countries, especially islands and Africa. Promises of compensation have already been given, but have not yet been fulfilled, and the question arises whether paying compensation is enough.
Floods, destructive storms, heat waves and periods of drought plague the world, and the main victims are the residents of African countries. Forests are cut down, oil wells are dug, species become extinct, factories spread pollution and skies that used to be clear turn gray. There is no doubt that the main culprit in global warming, in the destruction of the natural environment, in the damage to water sources, in the extinction of species and in pollution is the "Global North", meaning the developed countries of the North and West.
There is also no doubt that the main victims are the residents of the poor south and the developing countries, especially Africa. When Earth experts state that "six of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed", it is clear to all parties who the main culprits are. Throughout history, the appetite of the North was insatiable, an appetite for resources that were extracted mainly from the South, resources such as wood, metals and oil that were robbed from the South and supported economic progress and development in the North, while the robbed South remained behind.
Although the robbery attempts continue, there are also attempts by northerners who are aware of the damage and are ready to compensate by offering compensation. Is it enough for the culprit to pay compensation to the main victims? Has the destruction already reached such a severe state that it cannot be repaired? Will financial compensation really compensate for the damage to nature and people?
There are commitments for financial support to the states, commitments to preserve the environment and reduce emissions, commitments that are supposed to be fulfilled by 2030. There are those who demand that the northern states provide more than financial compensation, through help to the states in a way that does not recycle the devastating injuries.
There is no doubt that in order to develop economically it is necessary to use resources, therefore the challenge will be to do this in a sustainable manner. Many of the indigenous groups depend on the natural assets, so hunter-gatherers depend on the availability of trees and shrubs, herders depend on pastures and fishermen on clean water bodies. These also provide the residents of cities with food (and fuel), the need for everyone's survival also causes unsustainable use of resources, for example the use of wood as fuel despite the understanding of the importance of forests' survival. The implementation of the environmental obligations of the North will require solutions that will keep the trees standing.
Despite the conceptual support and research, the help from the North is far from effective. The purchase of forests by polluting enterprises as part of the "carbon trade" is at best little more than "green-wash" to wash away conscience and the feeling of "we did it" in front of an angry audience. Financial support from the North, if done correctly, has a chance to be an incentive for the protection of forests, but the problem is that the support depends on the side of the supporter, which changes and is often conditioned by the demands of the supported. P
Because of the conditions and limitations of the support from the north, today there is an understanding of the need for additional solutions. The accepted solution of "carbon trading" turns out to be partial. While there are many places and cases in which payments from polluting factories reach the states and thus help preserve forests, through the establishment of schools and health institutions and above all the development of diesel heating and cooking means, there are also many cases in which the payments do not reach their destination. Therefore, complementary solutions are needed.
It is necessary to combine financial support from the North to the states together with the regulation of the support in such a way that it reaches the right places and appropriate uses. For example, the support can be used to establish renewable energy systems, to develop sustainable agriculture, and to improve water infrastructure.
There is no doubt about the responsibility of the northern countries for the climatic and environmental disaster. Therefore, it is their duty to support the victims and at the same time to stop the looting of nature and above all to stop the polluting emissions.
Is Israel northern?
Israel is considered an advanced and "northern" country in relation to warming and climate change. The justification is decisions and commitments to reduce emissions. However, when decisions are not implemented and the commitments are not implemented, it is doubtful whether the location in the "North" is justified.
Israel is a small country with a relatively small population. However, it is responsible for a significant part of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Israel is also a country rich in resources, with a large area of forests, agricultural land and other natural resources.
Israel can contribute a lot to the global effort to mitigate climate change. It can do this by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, by developing renewable energy systems and by helping other countries deal with climate change.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
