GRMD 1402_Climate justice_Which principle do you support more? by

2025-03-17 06:04:37 UTC

Any burdens incurred by mitigation and adaptation should be distributed according to agents’ ability to pay.

2025-03-17 06:05:01 UTC

This principle is more fair as people are bearing the responsibilities based on their own emission.

Ensure fairness

2025-03-17 06:05:09 UTC

2025-03-17 06:05:21 UTC

I support this principle due to the bearing of responsibility. Since the polluters are the origin of emissions, they should take the initiative to reduce or pay for the consequences. It is more related to justice and fairness.

2025-03-17 06:05:33 UTC

Comparing to beneficiary pays principle and ability to pay principle, it emphasizes more on the responsibility that the public should bear. Adjusting the cost they should pay according to the amount of pollutants they emit is fair.

I think people who pollute should be held accountable and pay

2025-03-17 06:08:01 UTC

Because this is relatively fair, whoever causes environmental pollution should be charged according to a relative proportion, just like the plastic bag levy policy. If you choose to use a plastic bag, you have to pay to buy for the pollutant.

2025-03-17 06:11:43 UTC

Some developing countries which have a larger sector of secondary industries may pay for more. The responsibilities are mostly beared by them. What are the developed countries?

2025-03-17 06:11:44 UTC

If the polluters are those from the LDCs, which are responsible for producing goods for the MDCs, then the LDCs not only encounter pollution problems due to the production process, but also have to pay an extra financial cost if we adopt a polluter-pay principle.

2025-03-17 06:16:15 UTC

I would support this principle. First, polluter can have a more effective way to reduce the pollution. For example if the polluter is the government, they can implement policies to help with decreasing pollutants emissions. Or more specifically for the industries . They can also replace the manufacturing machines with a lesser pollutant emissions in order to pay less and have higher net profit. However for beneficiary, they may not all have the ability to afford. They are more they normal citizens and what they can do maybe just turn off air conditioners in days not that hot which could not diminish the emissions very effectively.