Should rich countries pay more for climate change?

1. Article 5: Should rich countries pay more for
climate change?
Developing nations have said the issue of loss and damage is a 'red line' which must be addressed
for talks in Warsaw to progress. Karl Mathiesen investigates the basis for the demands and how
it could impact progress at the climate conference. Taraska said that the moral argument for
compensation by rich countries is redundant within the politics of climate change. Developed
countries see the issue as a Pandora's Box of limitless liability that they simply refuse to touch.
Couple this with the reality that despite their affluence, rich countries don't have the money to
underwrite a succession of calamities like typhoon Haiyan and you have a "non-starter". There is
another school of thought that says, if developed countries were serious about reducing carbon
emissions then they would not see loss and damage compensation as a major concern. At the
very least this says something about the pessimism which surrounds the global mitigation effort.
The language of this debate is slightly tortured. Advocates of the loss and damage mechanism
have distanced themselves from discussing compensation directly. They say a mechanism would
deal primarily with research to minimize losses, sharing knowledge, insurance, and risk retention
and solidarity payments. There should be a commitment to accommodate climate refugees in
developed countries. All of these measures will cost money. The claim that this is not about
some kind of financial reimbursement or transaction seems disingenuous. I feel that West can
afford it, developed countries are obliged to support at least some of these measures.
The non-cooperation of the US and others on this issue smacks of protectionism - closing the
portholes and hunkering down. Loss and damage caused by climate change will be a result of
unsuccessful mitigation and adaptation. Thankfully, a loss and damage mechanism could be built
in a way which assuages wealthy nation’s fears of creeping compensation claims. This could
allow some measure of success to emerge from the meeting currently taking place. Reports that
the issue is polarizing the Warsaw talks appear to be overblown, mostly because of the much
tweeted 'walk out'. Yes, this issue is contentious and developing countries are frustrated by the
lack of progress. But it seems unlikely to destabilize the talks. What it may do, should a
consensus be reached, is give momentum and a patina of success to an otherwise lusterless
conference.