Why should nations that stand to benefit from climate change have to contribute to the fight against it?

0
Avatar of The Politicus
The Politicus
Feb 07, 2022 04:57 PM 0 Answers
Member Since Sep 2018
Subscribed Subscribe Not subscribe
Flag(0)

Based on this article, this article and this article, global warming could benefit some countries in the world. The first article (withdrawn later as pointed out by LShaver) says the warming of temperatures across the world could generate an economic boost to some 70 countries in the coming decades. One of the examples given in the first article is:

For the mildest pathway, the Czech economy could stand to gain nearly 0.3% in GDP per capita by 2050 when compared to current emission levels and temperatures, with similar gains spread across the rest of the century as well. Interestingly, the higher the emissions, the higher the benefit for Czech Republic.

This article could be questionable, but it is not hard to understand that countries with low-temperature climate could benefit from the global warming. Not even to mention that the economy of many countries will be harmed if we use carbon-free fuels instead of fossil fuels.

Given this, why is it becoming constructive (or more emotionally, "politically correct") for nations in the world to form a joint force to fight global warming? Why should any country be blamed/discriminated for not being part of it?


Update: I personally do not deny the fact that human beings as a whole will benefit from stopping global warming in the next hundreds of years. My questions is more about why the majority of the world has the right to use the "political correctness" to force (using media or political influence whatever) the countries (no matter there are 70 of them or 7 of them) that will benefit from it in the next few decades. As a comparison, we can question the whether the majority can force the religious minority to abandon their gods and believe in science.

In a nutshell, my question is more about politics than science. If you believe it is constructive, one possible way to answer is to argue (better with theories from political science, game theory etc.) that the small number of countries will inevitably suffer more in other ways (from sanctions, wars, kicked out of important organizations by the pro-clean-energy big powers) even if their economy could boost from global warming forever (thanks to the comments by Jeff Lambert). Answers from other perspectives are also welcome and appreciated!

0 Subscribers
Submit Answer
Please login to submit answer.
0 Answers
Sort By:

  • February 7, 2022