1. Should the prevention of long term Climate change be put before the development of LEDC’s?
CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION.
According to the Met Office, Climate Change is a large-scale, long-term shift in the planet's weather
patterns or average temperatures.1
Climate change is caused by the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. This
phenomenon is in turn caused by human activity, through the emission of greenhouse gases. There are
a variety of examples of human activity that cause the enhanced greenhouse effect, and thus Climate
change.
There are many impacts that will come about as a result of Climate Change. According to NASA2
,
these are some of the more severe; droughts and heatwaves will be more common. The European
heatwave in 2003 that killed over 20,000 people is just an example of this. Heatwaveslike this will only
get worse and will become more regular. Droughts, which currently tend to hit LEDC’s the most
severely, will become more extreme and last for longer. Areas like the Sahel which are currently
experiencing desertification will experience this at a faster rate than ever before, and once this occurs,
it will be very difficult preventing it from spreading further, as we are experiencing this problem
already. Hurricanes will become much stronger and intense. This is because the sea temperatures will
be warmer and closer to the optimum temperature of 26 degrees centigrade, which aids the formation
of hurricanes. These hurricanes will wreak havoc on the coastal cities of the USA, as seen with
Hurricane Katrina. This will incur huge economic and human cost. Moreover, sea levels are likely to
rise 1-4 feet. This is as a result of melting land glaciers around the globe. As a result of this sea level
rise, coastal cities around the world will likely be flooded, meaning huge cost, both economically and
human. Millions will need to be relocated fortunately, these drastic impacts can be prevented.
There are a number of different definitions of development, depending on where you are,and who you
choose to believe. For example, the USA and UK, the CORE countries, may feel that nations like
Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines are less developed countries, because when comparing these
countries to the western powers,they have a weaker economy, an industry based upon primary sectors,
and a limited amount of technology. However,alternative definitions of development describe that the
happiness of the nation’s population should play a part in defining how developed a nation is. In this
instance, these countries, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, among others, would be more
developed than the USA. Despite this valid explanation, for this dissertation I am going to use the
definition provided by National Geographic3
, which describes that ‘Development is the process of
growth, or changing from one condition to another. In economics, development is change from a
traditional economy to one based on technology.’ This is because this definition best describes the link
between increased development and the level of emissions a country emits. Using the happiness of the
population does not demonstrate this link.
1 From Met Office website; link http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change
2 From the NASA website; link http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
3 From the National Geographic website; link
http://education.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/development/

2. The basis of my dissertation is whether development should be put on hold, so that climate change and
its catastrophic impacts can be prevented. This presents a question; why LEDC’s? In these graphs4
below, (see next page) they show that the MEDC’s which are developed, are the countries that emit the
most amount of Greenhouse gases. This is because the more developed a country is, or how based its
economy is on technology, the more greenhouse gases they emit. This will make sure that the critical 2
degree centigrade rise will not be reached and the impacts on the earth will not be realised. Therefore,
to prevent climate change from getting worse,the development of these LEDC’s must be put on hold
until a ‘green’ energy alternative is discovered, as this would prevent a dramatic increase in greenhouse
gas emissions. This will be initiated by MEDC’s as they have the economic strength to bear the cost of
the manufacture of these sources, such as tidal, wind and solar technologies.
If these LEDC’s were to develop therefore, proven by my previous paragraph, then they would
dramatically increase the levels of global GHG5
emissions. In order to prove this dramatic increase in
the emissions of newly developed LEDC’s I constructed this excel spreadsheet. In this Excel
spreadsheet, (separate document) are the potential emissions of LEDC’s if they were to develop to the
average point of the Top 25 MEDC’s. I worked out these figures through finding the top 25 most
developed countries from the UN human development index report of 2014. Then I found their
emissions per capita (per person) from the World carbon dioxide emissions6
spreadsheet and completed
a simple average calculation to this information. The average emissions per capita came to 12.71296. I
then multiplied this figure with the entire population of each LEDC. This gave me the total emissions
of carbon dioxide of eachLEDCwhen developed to the average point of eachMEDC. (see spreadsheet)
My personal view is that the prevention of long term climate change should be put before the
development of LEDC’s. This may change as I continue throughout this dissertation. Although there
are serious ethical questions that need to be answered,my view is that it would be very harsh, but the
delay of development is what is required, to prevent the continued acceleration of Climate change which
is already at an alarming rate. Moreover, if Climate Change is allowed to continue the severe impacts
would affect everyone, most considerably in LEDC’s. Therefore, the prevention of development of
4 From the World Resources Institute website; link
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters
5 Greenhouse Gas
6 Link for spreadsheet which workings were based upon:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FzTF_G0qNN9TC1RiVrvMr_hRSfuY5W2uXDTyCt3HBqE/edit

3. LEDC’s is only a short term delay in order to secure their future, and the futures of the other countries
around the world. This delay would provide MEDC’s with more time to introduce international
measures or laws to cut out greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve a fully ‘green’ world. Obviously,
this strategy would take huge international cooperation and would involve all countries signing a treaty
to all begin the introduction of ‘Green’ energy alternatives. In order to get all LEDC’s to agree to go
along with this international strategy, incentives would have to be introduced. These may include debt
repayment, or sanction reduction. Furthermore, international relations would have to be improved,
especially among the largest emitters such as the USA, China, the EU, Russia and India.
CHAPTER 2: PROBLEMS WITH THIS STRATEGY
The first problem that this strategy would encounter would making sure that LEDC’s development is
prevented. As we have seen with China, India and Brazil for example, internal economic reforms and
trade deals with other countries around the globe aided and initiated these countries development. This
would need to be stopped. This would be achieved by using The World System Theory which describes
that the CORE countries (MEDC’s) help LEDC’s under develop through the exploitation of a number
of characteristics, such as:
1.) The Brain Drain. This is where extremely talented intellectuals from LEDC’s leave their home
nations for the MEDC’s, in hope of better employment opportunities and salary. In turn, the LEDC’s
lose valuable assets who if had remained at home could have helped their country develop.
2.) Political Support. This may be provided through supporting international agenda that the USA may
introduce, or LEDC’s may choose to side with one country rather than another in times of political
dispute. This gives the MEDC the reassurance that they will be supported during times of international
tension. As a result of this, the LEDC would receive something that they need from the MEDC, for
example a loan. This makes them reliant on the MEDC, and if this support was withdrawn, then
development would be, and is, very difficult.
3.) Debt repayment and purchase repayments. This area prevents LEDC’s from developing because
they are in the unfortunate position of having an economy overly reliant on foreign investment or loans.
This means that their economy is heavily restricted and has little growth capacity. This was seen in
Germany following the First World War. Once the investment was pulled from Germany following the
Wall Street Crash, German economy collapsed. This can also happen today, and this prevents
development because the LEDC will collapse economically if investment is removed.
Therefore,if it was agreed that the prevention of Climate change will be put before the development of
LEDC’s, then the CORE,(USA,UK France,Germany Australia etc.) would have to continue with this
method of maintaining the under development of LEDC’s. This would be easily implemented because
these countries are already undertaking this task. This model is an excellent example of how power
remains static, so therefore it would have to be used in the period where the CORE are attempting to
discover a clean energy alternative as it prevents the development of LEDC’s, and thus a significant
increase in emissions.
With the current financial situation being that LEDC’s are very dependent on the CORE, in order to
prevent the development of these LEDC’s,the COREcountries would simply have to withdraw support
in the forms of:

4. • Manufactured goods
• Aid
• Political and economic ideas
Ethical Issues.
This is one of the most significant issues associated with this strategy. This is because it involves
preventing the improvement of millions of lives around the globe in order to prevent Climate Change;
a problem createdmost significantly by MEDC’s.When looking at this strategy,the main characteristic
of it is the ‘Prevention of LEDC’s Development’ but what does this actually entail?
Below are some figures that an LEDC has to cope with. If we did adopt this strategy, then this below is
what we will be continuing until a new renewable and efficient energy source is discovered for
worldwide implementation. These figures demonstrate the unethical nature of implementing this
strategy. These facts and figures come from the World Health Organisation7
.
• 5.9 million Children under age five died in 2015 (in LEDC’s), nearly 16 000 every day .
• In urban areas of developing countries, infant mortality rate remains particularly high at 61
deaths per 1000 live births in Africa (including 31 countries) .
• The region of South and West Asia is home to more than one-half of the global illiterate
population (52%). In addition, 22% of all illiterate adults live in sub-Saharan Africa,13% in East Asia
and the Pacific, 6.5% in the Arab States and 4.7% in Latin America and the Caribbean.
• Life expectancy at birth is as low as 49 years in some LEDC’s, with the highest being just 72
years old. In some MEDC’s the highest reaches 89 years old .
This data demonstrates the ethical issue associated with this strategy if it were to be implemented. If
these countries were to be allowed to develop, then these facts and figures would be significantly
reduced. Below are figures from MEDC’s. This demonstrates the significant reduction. These facts are
also from the World Health Organisation.
• In the UK, there are only 2.4 child deaths per 1000 births.
• In the UK, the average life expectancy is at 80 years at birth.
Therefore, if we did prevent development, it will take huge international negotiations and cooperation
in order to get this implemented. This brings me on to the next problem with the implementation of this
strategy.
International Cooperation.
This is the area which will prevent both areasofthis strategybeing implemented; the prevention of long
term climate change and the short term prevention of the development of LEDC’s.Firstly, demonstrated
by the Paris Climate Conference talks of 2015, it was agreed that all countries around the globe would
7 From the WHO website link; http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/mortality_under_five_text/en/

5. ‘attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C ’ it was the first pact that involved all
the countries around the globe, and the first that meant that all nations agreed to cut their carbon
emissions. Some of the key points are listed below. This is from the BBC News8
website summary
“To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and
sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”
“To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C”
“To review progress every five years”
“$100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further
finance in the future” .
Despite the fact that this treaty was the first of its kind in that it involved all nations from around the
globe with all striving toward a common goal, it does have its problems, despite the successes that it
presents.
For example, the ‘agreementis partly legally binding and partly voluntary’9
the partly voluntary element
of this deal displays a problem with this strategy, and international agreements as a whole. It is stating
that this goal of aiming to prevent Global warming reaching 2C rise, some countries this only has to be
adopted if that country wanted to. Therefore, if a certain country decided not to adopt this ‘agreement’
then they are directly undermining the rest of the world as a whole, and worsening its impacts. When
the strategy of the prevention of development would be introduced, there cannot be any undermining
of its aims; to find an alternative, green energy source for international implementation. In having a
united world on one aim, all providing knowledge, funding and resources,the discovery of this energy
source will only happen sooner, and therefore,a united effort to kick start the development of LEDC’s
can be initiated, through providing these nations with aid, investment and employment opportunities.
Furthermore, there are other problems with this deal. It aims only to ‘commit all countries to cut carbon
emissions’ therefore, they are not aiming to totally stop Carbon Dioxide from entering into the
atmosphere. An article provided by the Guardian10
describes that: “The lifetime in the air of CO2, the
most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there
are severalprocesses that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2
released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by
slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering
and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect
climate for thousands of years.” This demonstrates the inadequacies of plans such as the Paris Climate
Conference;they neverachieve what is actually required to save the environment, but only aim to tackle
a small part of the problem.
Moreover, the funding set aside for ‘Climate finance’ is simply not enough. When looking around the
globe, and researching what developed countries spend some of their many billions on, some of the
8 From the BBC News Website link; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374
9 From the BBC news website, link; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374
10 From the Guardian Website, link; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-
remain-air

6. things are shocking. In the UK alone, on our nuclear program, we spend £100bn11
on nuclear weapons
throughout their lifetime, and the UKhave 4 nuclear submarines, which eachcarry16 nuclear warheads.
Simple mathematics suggests that the UK spend £15,625,000 on each missile. If this figure was applied
to all nuclear warheads around the globe, of which there are 16,300, all together internationally, we
would have £254,687,500,000 to spend on implementation of green energy alternatives, and any spare
capital could be used in investing into LEDC’s and this would kick start their economy and
development. We have the funding, the problem would be the disarmament.
To conclude this Chapter, International Cooperation will be the biggest barrier to the implementation
of my strategy to prevent development and thus, Climate change. When looking at the deal struck in
the Paris Climate Conference in 2015, there were positives, as it demonstrated that the world can come
together to negotiate and strike a deal. However it demonstrates the inadequacies of international
negotiations when it comes to climate change; yes,they do aim to reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide,
but there are no measures to reduce the emissions of Methane, Halocarbons, or CFC’s, other
Greenhouse Gases. Secondly, the deal is ‘partly voluntary12
’ meaning that some countries can do what
they want; they could directly undermine the work of other nations. The result of the Paris Peace
Conference is a promising one as it paves the way for a more significant deal in the future.
11 Trident Mithbusterlink to PDF; http://tridentploughshares.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Trident_mythbuster.pdf
12
From the BBC news website, link; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374

7. CHAPTER 3: THE INTRODUCTION OF MY STRATEGY
In my previous chapter, I listed some of the ethical issues associated with the prevention of
development; for example, maintaining high infant mortality rate and a low life expectancy in LEDC’s.
In order for LEDC’s to adopt this deal and agree to put their development on hold, MEDC’s will have
to offer incentives to have the LEDC’s ‘on board’.
Incentive 1: Clearing of LEDC Debt
To convince the developing nations and non-developing nations around the world to adopt this strategy,
incentives would have to be introduced either before the process begins, or after it begins. The
incentives introduced would have to improve a certain characteristic of LEDC’s around the globe. The
first incentive I have decided to put forward to introduce after the process has been completed is the
clearing of LEDC’s debt. This will enable LEDC’s to develop their economies, the foundation to
successfuldevelopment. All developing countries around the world, either owe money to MEDC’s,or
owe money to the IMF; the International Monetary Fund13
. With the majority of these countries this
debt is exactly what is crippling their economies, as rather than investing in their industries, and
financing the adoption of a technological basedeconomy, like we see in the UK,Germany and the USA,
any finance that they do manage to raise is immediately used to repay the MEDCs or IMF that have
loaned them some capital in the hope of kick starting their economies in the first place, rather than
attempting to strengthen their economies. My idea would be that once MEDC’s around the globe have
succeeded in international implementation of green energy alternatives they should clear all debt of
LEDC’sand invest in their economies. Furthermore, LEDC’swould be helped if MEDC’soffertraining
to the crucial sectors of LEDC’s such as education and healthcare. This would signify the beginnings
of development in LEDC’s around the globe. This extra capital and debt clearance will enable these
LEDC’s to create more employment opportunities and will reduce the rate of the Brain Drain. It is
hoped that the introduction of this incentive will help LEDC’s increase their economic strength and this
will provide the foundations for worldwide development for LEDC’s.
Incentive 2: MEDC’s Provide Green Energy Alternatives for Free
This strategy aims to put LEDC development on hold in order to prevent Climate change accelerating
further and thus, this will give time to MEDC’s to develop an energy alternative which will see the
world move from economies based upon fossil fuels to economies based upon ‘Green’ energy
alternatives. In addition to the first incentive of the clearance of LEDC debt, the second alternative
should be that when an alternative energy solution has been found by MEDC’s around the globe, they
should provide it to LEDC’s for free. This would be a huge benefit to LEDC’s as firstly, it is another
burden that their economies to not have to bear the strain of, and is also another thing that will prevent
them going into debt and owing MEDC’s increasing amounts of money, despite their debts being
cleared as part of their first incentive. This incentive will help them develop as they are being given the
‘Green’ foundations for their economy; the foundation for the development of LEDC’s.
Incentive 3: MEDC’s pay for LEDC’s education and healthcare.
This incentive would only be in place for a short term period of around 10 years. This would enable the
healthcare and education sectors of LEDC’s around the globe to be fully established, and would also
enable the economies of LEDC’s to reach the sufficient strength so that they can continue with the
13 Table of International Debt: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&Topic=20

8. funding of these sectors once the funding of MEDC’s has been withdrawn. This incentive in particular
focuses on two characteristics of LEDC’s that we currently place on LEDC’s; low life expectancy and
poorer literacy rates. All of these incentives that I have thought should be introduced all will lead to the
development of LEDC’s, as they all are focusing on sectors which aid the development of these
countries. Although their development has been put on hold, by MEDC’s,it will be reinitiated by them
also. It is hoped that by doing this, future generations in LEDC’s will regard the MEDC’s as the people
who paved the way to their development and thus, the improvement of the quality of life in their
countries. This may improve international relations around the world, and will hopefully see an increase
in world peace.
Incentive 4: In disaster hotspots, MEDC’s provide training to improve response.
Some LEDC’s have the problem of dealing with disasters, and sometimes, more than one disaster. We
see this in the Philippians, where not only are they susceptible to earthquakes,they are also susceptible
to tsunamis. This risk to these disasters is only accentuated by the fact that they have dated technology
in their early warning systems, and poor training in search and rescue,and poor infrastructure in their
buildings. When linking this to development, in these countries their development could be going very
well, in that their economies are stronger than before, and sectorssuch aseducation and healthcare have
seen a marked improvement. However, being in a disaster hotspot means that this progress has the
potential to be seriously undermined or destroyed by either the occurrence of an earthquake, tsunami,
or both. These naturalhazards could destroy vast areas of land, buildings and capital that the countries
have. Therefore, to prevent these disasters having such as detrimental effect on this development
LEDC’s need the help of MEDC’s to provide this training that is required. This will help LEDC’s
maintain the progress of their development, without having something that would seriously impact their
economies strength and its ability to develop further.

9. CHAPTER 4: THE ROLE OF MEDC’s
The role of MEDC’s will be split into two sections; the role of MEDC Governments, and the role of
MEDC’s populations. Not only will the prevention of climate change will be successful through the
adoption of top down and bottom up strategies, the governments of MEDC’s will be beginning the
researchanddevelopment with the aim of finding an efficient, Carbon neutralenergy alternative. I fully
believe that there is one to be found. Not only this, governments around the globe would be introducing
top down initiatives. (Something introduced by the governments; the top, which the population adopts)
these initiatives would include the full implementation of solar panels to heat our water. This would be
funded by the spare capital that MEDC’s would now be saving following the disarmament of nuclear
warhead programmes. This would see a significant reduction in the consumption of Oil, a fossil fuel,
and thus would see a significant reduction in Carbon Dioxide. Bottom up strategies (initiatives
introduced by local people that positively the environment for example, and keep within the aims of the
government.) would include the introduction of vegetable gardens14
, which were introduced in WW2.
TOP DOWN STRATEGIES
As MEDC’s are the richest nations around the globe, and tend to find capital to fund anything that
promotes their policies, then they should have no problems in raising finance to implement some
environmentally friendly strategies both around the world and domestically. One of the largest
contributors to greenhouse gas emissions is the burning of petrol and diesel in cars. Although car
companies, such as Toyota, Tesla and BMW, are beginning to branch out into technologies such as
electric cars and hybrids, however, the technology is so advanced that these cars are still expensive and
therefore are not available to all people on a lower income. For example, the technology in the batteries
of the BMW I3 and I8 is so advanced that when you purchase the car, you never actually own the
batteries as they are worth £10,000 each and in the I8, there are 8 batteries. Therefore, investment is
needed in this industry so that the technology has a chance to be widely distributed and also a chance
to get cheaper. As well as this incentive, countries could introduce a scheme such as the scrappage
scheme that we have seen introduced in the UK, but with the aim of trading in a car which burns petrol
for a car which runs on electricity, or is a hybrid. Therefore, we would see a significant drop in the
emissions of Greenhouse gases and hopefully the lessening of impacts of Climate change.
My previous Top down initiative that I think could be an option to introduce is one that is very specific
and focuses on a certain emitter; cars. My next initiative that I think should be introduced involves the
international implementation of renewables. One of the most impressive examples of a country which
relies the most on renewable energy generation is Sweden,who generate 52% of their countries power
from renewable energy sources15
. Therefore, this demonstrates that the wide scale implementation of
renewable energy sources is in fact possible. Therefore,it should be an initiative that all MEDC’s and
eventually LEDC’s should introduce. The money that they are spending on maintaining oil rigs, on the
14 ‘This changes everything’written by Naomi Klien
15 Swedish green energy generation percentage. https://sweden.se/quick-facts/renewable-energy/

10. technology used in fracking, the extractors being used in the tar sands, should be diverted away from
these polluting industries and used to fund the international implementation of renewable energy
sources. Any jobs lost can be re-introduced in the sector building, controlling and maintaining
generating systems such as solar panels and wind turbines. This will considerably reduce the emissions
of greenhouse gases, and will also lessen the impacts of climate change.
BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIES
There are many different initiatives that the population of MEDC’s can introduce themselves, and the
majority of them are affordable to implement. Some of these strategies do not even cost anything.
Strategies include;
• Invest in double glazing.
• Turn off all appliances when not in use
• Replace equipment with energy efficient models
• Insulate your home: loft insulation, you will then lose less heat, and burn less oil as a result.
• Holidays: don't fly, take a train or alternative transport method
• Walk to your local facilities rather than taking the car
• Try cycling, walking or running to get from A to B
• Take public transport to work
Al Gore, speaking at a TED talk, also conveys this view, describing that we should try and “reduce
emissions in your home. Most of these expenditures are also profitable. Insulation, better design. Buy
green electricity where you can. I mentioned automobiles -- buy a hybrid. Use light rail. Figure out
some of the other options that are much better.”16
This demonstrates the fact that reducing emissions
does not have to be a difficult process.
16 Al Gore, speaking at his TED talk, Averting the climate crisis.
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_on_averting_climate_crisis/transcript?language=en#t-3047

11. CHAPTER 5: IS THIS STRATEGY ACTUALLY NEEDED?
Countries such as Sweden, who generate 52% of their nation’s power through renewable energy17
sources,demonstrate that the wide scale implementation of renewable energy sources is in fact possible
in this day and age, and with the current worldwide political environment as well asthe attitudes toward
such renewable energy sources; such as ‘Nimbyism’. It is quite possible that this strategy; not the
prevention of development so that MEDC’s can find a Green energy alternative, but the wide scale
introduction of renewables will eventually happen, but unfortunately as a reactionary action as nothing
has been, or will be, achieved to prevent the disastrous impacts of climate change that will occur if
MEDC’s continue burning fossil fuels and signing treaties such as the Paris Climate Conference that
have no real, positive impacts on the environment, or significant aims to reduce the amount of
Greenhouse Gas emissions, or a timescale which will genuinely impact the planet; we need to stop
emitting now, not in 2025. A Climate strategy that is far reaching, worldwide, which has aspects that
are legally binding rather than voluntary, and which have significant, positive impacts on the
environment is what is actually required.
When considering if this strategy; (the prevention of development so MEDC’s can find a green energy
alternative) is actually needed, there are aspects of it that are needed immediately, and others, more
drastic strategies,such as the prevention of development that may not be needed if all countries around
the world agree to have a massive implementation of renewable energy sources. Unfortunately for the
planet and those underdeveloped countries, this alone demonstrates what actually the problem is
currently in regard to climate change; all countries around the world are too concentrated on what is the
best for themselves rather than the environment. The international situation is very individualistic, what
is really required is a collective approach with some countries prepared to make sacrifices. We see this
in countries such as Brazil where they are conducting the vast deforestation of the Amazon rainforest,
despite its benefits for the environment and the potential economic benefits that Brazil and other South
American countries could secure if they left it alone, and started its protection; through, for example,
eco-tourism. Even if this strategy in its entirety was needed,reactionary or not, the implementation of
this strategy would probably never happen. This is because the incentives that I have put forward will
not be sufficient enough, for the LEDC’s involved, or the MEDC’s would rather have their capital
instead of a healthy planet and a future safe from continued storms, famine and drought as a result of
climate change.
More drastic areas of this strategy such as the prevention of development have many different ethical
issues associated with the implementation of it. However if we look around the world, the majority of
the LEDC’sare in no real state to begin developing. Can we say therefore that this strategy isn't actually
needed because there is no realpotential of these countries developing to the point of countries such as
the USA Germany and the U.K. and therefore their emissions will not reach the point of these countries
either? We can say therefore when looking at whether this strategy; putting development of LEDC’s on
hold so that climate change can be prevented, is actually required in order to prevent climate change,
realistically, the answer would be that there are elements of it that are needed and that are being
implemented right this moment. This includes for example the construction of wind farms and solar
farms. However there are other elements, such as the prevention of development which are not actually
needed.Unfortunately due to how the MEDC’said the underdevelopment of these LEDC’sthe position
of these countries looks to be remaining static and therefore this area of this strategy is not required.
17 https://sweden.se/quick-facts/renewable-energy/

12. Moreover, despite the problems of the Paris Climate conference and the fact that there were some
inadequacies that did go along with it, the fact is that, described by Christiana Figueres at a recent TED
talk how that “On December12, 2015, in Paris,under the United Nations, 195 governments got together
and unanimously -- if you've worked with governments, you know how difficult that is -- unanimously
decided to intentionally change the course of the global economy in order to protectthe most vulnerable
and improve the life of all of us. Now, that is a remarkable achievement.”18
This demonstrates that
infact, countries canget together and formulate a treaty that hasthe planets interests at heart.This means
that maybe, a drastic strategy that I have set about constructing in this dissertation is not actually
required.
CHAPTER 6: CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS
When looking at my question; should the prevention of long term climate change be put before the
development of LEDC’s,it is obvious that this question, and if development wasput on hold, is a drastic
initiative in the attempt of preventing climate change and its impacts. The main conflicting argument
that I will put forward is that climate change can be prevented with far less drastic initiatives, such as
the wide scale implementation of renewable energy sources, such as we see in Sweden, combined with
an international agreement of all countries to all aim to significantly reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions,
and all Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which is legally binding, unlike the deal struck at the Paris Climate
Conference of 201519
which gave some countries the luxury of it being part voluntary. The deal struck
would have to start immediately, not in 5 or 10 years’ time. Regular people also have a part to play in
the protection of our planet. This will include many different strategies which all contribute to the
reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions.
Naomi Klein20
suggests that regular people adopt these simple strategies that were used in World War
two to save fuel and to contribute to the wareffort.One change wasthat pleasure driving waseliminated
in the UK. The advantages of this are obvious; less people driving their cars means that less petrol and
diesel burnt, and as a result less greenhouse gases are emitted. It is things like this which prove that
preventing climate change from worsening is certainly not an impossibility.
Not only this, short journeys could be walked or cycled instead of going in the car. Or as we see in the
USA during World War 2, the use of public transport went up by 87% in the US. This also aids the
reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases as more people are being transported, but by a single
‘emittor’ of greenhouse gases; a bus or train for example, instead of 20-50 cars.
One of the most significant emitters of greenhouse gases is in agriculture. The growth of crops such as
wheat and corn, as well as the growth of vegetables all involve a continuous process of watering,
fertilising and harvesting; all using machines such as tractors and Combine harvesters, which emit a
significant amount of Carbon dioxide. Moreover, as I have said before in this disseratation, animal
agriculture also involves a huge amount of emissions, both due to the transport of these animals, but
also more critically, especially in cows which emit huge amounts of methane during their digestive
process. Less cows, less emissions, and climate change could even be slowed.
18 Christiana Figueres, the inside story of the Paris Climate agreement, Ted Talk, www.ted.com
19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374
20 This changes everything,written by Naomi Klien

13. During World War 2, to furthermore save fuel, and to combat rationing, 20m households representing
3/5th of the population grew victory gardens accounting for 42% of veg consumed that year. These all
account for greatly reducing GHG emissions, and demonstrate that the drastic strategy of placing the
development of LEDC’s on hold so that MEDC’s can find an energy alternative with the goal of
preventing climate change, is not needed, and also demonstrates that initiatives put in place by thelocal
population have a significant, positive impact on the environment and see a marked reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. Just think therefore, what top down strategies could achieve.
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
The overall aim of this dissertation was to answer the question ‘Should the prevention of long term
climate change be put before the development of LEDC’s?’ Throughout this essay, I have examined
putting this ‘climate change strategy’ in place with the aim of developing a Green energy alternative,
which would replace the use of fossil fuels, and therefore mark a significant decline in the emission of
greenhouse gases. I have also examined the problems associated with this strategy,and how they would
hopefully be solved, such as its implementation, and the funding for the development of a new energy
source. Furthermore, I have examined what changes local people can make to both their lifestyle and
homes, which aids the prevention of long term climate change and thus its impacts. In concluding this
dissertation, I will hopefully draw together the positives and negatives of this strategy, and come to a
clear decision on whether it should be considered for implementation or not.
The title of this dissertation; ‘Should the prevention of long term climate change be put before the
development of LEDC’s immediately displayed a problem; how would we, if planning to implement
this strategy worldwide, convince LEDC’s to adopt it? As you have read previous to my conclusion, I
thought that incentives should be introduced as a persuasive method for LEDC’s to ensure that this
strategy would be carried out to the full. The incentives I came up with included the clearing of LEDC
debt, providing green energy alternatives for free,and LEDC’s have training of crucial sectors such as
education and healthcare provided by MEDC’s. Despite the many benefits that the LEDC’s would be
in line to face,this area of this strategy is possibly the weakest area and the most difficult to implement,
as it would involve convincing MEDC’s to wipe their debt, and paying for the training of medics and
teachers which won’t benefit themselves. Furthermore, providing the LEDC’s around the world with
the foundations for development, the USA for example may not want to provide such help as in the
long term, it may undermine the superpower status that they currently have. We see that in the current
worldwide situation that this may happen as a newly developed country in China is undermining the
position of the USA. They certainly won’t want to encourage this further with even more LEDC’s
around the globe.
Furthermore, the aim of MEDC’s around the globe developing a green energy alternative to fossil fuels
also displays an unfortunate problem. How would this effort be fairly distributed around the globe, in
terms of providing finance, providing the workforce; not only the researchers but the various people
who will start the researchanddevelopment of this energy alternative, who would provide the materials
and the premises, and finally, who would manufacture it? This demonstrates another problem with the
introduction of this strategy, the level of international cooperation and discussions needed for the most
basic process of this initiative. Countries such as the USA and Russia will not work together due to the
tensions in the past such as the Cold War,and current, more recent tensions such as the Ukraine Crisis.
If this is the case,only some countries will be happy to be a part of this strategy, and others will not.
Therefore, those countries will not be particularly interested in stopping or reducing the emissions of
Greenhouse gases, and while others will be working hard, their work will be directly undermined by
others. Moreover,if providing the different areasof making this energy alternative is distributed by ‘the

14. more you emit, the more you provide’ some countries such as the USA and China who are some of the
world’s largest emitters of Greenhouse gases may feel that they are being unfairly targeted. Therefore,
they may not feel as though this strategy is for them, and may opt out. This would render the strategy
totally pointless, as the most significant emitters would continue in emitting large quantities of
greenhouse gases.
LEDC’s around the globe also provide another problem. In reality, they are putting the improvement of
their quality of life and standard of living on hold for a period that is totally up to the MEDC’s. They
are doing it, so that the rest of the world can hopefully come together (which is unlikely) to solve a
problem which LEDC’s themselves had not real role in its creation; the problem of global warming.
This only accentuates the ethical issues and how LEDC’s around the globe have to continue suffering
them until an energy alternative is hopefully found. These ethical issues, as I said before, include how
that 5.9 million children under age five died in 2015 (in LEDC’s),this equates to nearly 16 000 every
day. Furthermore, in urban areasof developing countries, infant mortality rate remains particularly high
at 61 deaths per 1000 live births in Africa (including 31 countries). The incentives for adopting this
strategy cannot make up for the deaths of 5.9 million children each year. Why is it therefore, LEDC’s
should continue in this suffering while MEDC’s are not? This demonstrates another problem with the
implementation of this strategy; the ethical issues associated with it if it were to be put in place simply
cannot be justified. If a nation has the foundations of development then it should be allowed the right
to begin its own development, and no strategy, climate change or not, should prevent that from
continuing.
International negotiations would be an integral part of this strategy being implemented successfully.
History unfortunately tells us that international negotiations are an incredibly difficult process, and
rarely set out what they actually need to achieve. We see this, for example at the Paris Climate
Conference of 2015 where all nations around the globe all agreed to cut their emissions of the
Greenhouse gas, Carbon Dioxide. This in itself was a positive move, yet the timescale wasn’t specific;
aiming to ‘peak the emission of greenhouse gases as soon as possible’. What does that actually entail?
The exact term ‘as soon as possible’ is open to discussion, and every country will have a different idea
of how long that time actually is. For example, the BRIC countries; Brazil, Russia, India and China may
all agree that they can peak the Carbon emissions around the time where their development is
completed. Therefore,this maybe in around 50 years. By then, the critical 2 degree rise will have been
reached,and the impacts of climate change will not be able to be prevented. This demonstrates my view
that the current worldwide situation is that it is too individualistic. Still, in a climate change deal,
countries around the world are negotiating deals which benefit themselves rather than the environment.
What makes this worse is that this deal is partly voluntary and partly legally binding; some countries
don’t actually have to take any notice of any aspects that this strategy lays out. The hard work of one
country will be undermined by another. This demonstrates the problems associated with international
cooperation and negotiations; whatever countries are attempting to achieve,they have to place the good
of themselves; before the good of the planet. This proves that the implementation of this strategy;
putting the development of LEDC’son hold so climate change can be prevented will actually be ‘putting
the good of MEDC’s in front of the good of the planet and the future of her people’.
Another area of my strategy involves the inclusion of local people adopting different strategies, or
investing in new additions to their homes. This displays another problem with the implementation of
this strategy. During the period when MEDC’s are attempting to find a new green energy alternative,
local people have to aim to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the discovery of the new
energy alternative will involve some level of Greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately getting people
around the world to invest in their homes will prove very difficult and if not implemented properly,

15. then the work of MEDC’s in this period may be undermined. For example, some households will not
be able to introduce some of the elements that will help their households reduce their usage of oil or
gas, and thus this will reduce their carbon emissions. This is because for some households on a lower
income, these things will not be affordable. Some of these things as I listed before, include; Investing
in double glazing in your home, Replace domestic and electrical equipment with energy efficient
recommended models, as well as this, Insulating your home: loft insulation, Despite the benefits
associated with these investments, they are costly and what's more if all people that can afford these
additions then the materials involved my suffer shortages. Moreover, convincing all these people from
around the world to adopt these additions to their homes will take huge amounts of negotiations. The
only wayof achieving this and making sure that people around the globe do in factadopt these strategies
is to make it international law. Even this however would be extremely difficult to implement.
Another integral part of my strategy is securing the capital, to not only fund the research and
development of the new energy alternative, but to also fund the incentives that will be given to LEDC’s,
and also the investment in the technology in areas such as electric cars,which remain expensive at this
time. This capital as I said before, will be secured through the international ‘giving up’ of nuclear
weapons. This view was put forward firstly by Jeremy Corbyn the Labour Party leader, and although
this does not reflect my political views, the giving up of the nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes
does have its positives. Firstly it would free up a large quantity of capital worldwide and would remove
the single biggest threat to people around the world. However the removal of nuclear warheads from
around the world will no doubt be the single most challenging aspect of this strategy as each country
will be very concerned as to what it means for themselves. For example the USA will want to maintain
the status as the single superpower in the world, and to maintain its position of having deterrents from
other countries aggression. Without the nuclear weapons, the USA will be under increasing threat from
China who have the largest army in the world. Moreover, history has told us that disarmament is one of
the hardest international peace movements to implement. Following the end of World War One,
countries around the world ‘aimed’ to achieve full disarmament of non-nuclear weapons, and
unfortunately this was never achieved as no one (apart from Germany who was forced into it) fully
disarmed their offensive weapons. Therefore when attempting to disarm actual nuclear weapons, this
process will only prove harder as the nation first to disarm will suddenly be the weakest nation and will
suddenly become a target for the more aggressive nations such as Russia, and maybe North Korea.
Therefore this demonstrates that securing capital through the process of disarming our nuclear weapons
worldwide is unfortunately an unrealistic target to aim for. Therefore we would be unable to secure
funding for the research and development of a green energy alternative. Therefore we would be unable
to place the prevention of long term climate change before the development of LEDC’s.
This strategy, although some areas of it are more severe will never be able to be implemented, simply
due to the reasons that I have listed above in this conclusion. It would be able to be implemented in an
ideal world, where international cooperation is easy and the discussions achieve fully what they are
supposed to achieve. This is unfortunate because it will be a strategy like this which will actually
achieve some good. Unfortunately due to the individualist approach of the world powers which hold
the power, this will never happen. Despite this, described by Leonardo Dicaprio at his acceptance
speech at the Oscars, that “ Climate change is real and its happening right now. It is the most urgent
threat facing our entire speciesand we needto collectively work together and stop procrastinating…lets
not take this planet for granted”21
21 Leonardo Dicaprio, speaking at the Oscars.