- + Zahra joined Debatewise
- + Paoneujem joined Debatewise
- + Mariofan24 joined Global Youth Panel
- + Calum Crichton joined Debatewise
- + Irobbalovoido joined Debatewise
- + Uzrh."Boljabuducnost" joined Debatewise
- + Hine Unime joined Debatewise
- + Nadar Morrison joined Debatewise
- + Virtual Pixels joined Debatewise
- + Objereegrourl joined Debatewise
- + Abdul Sucks Penis joined Debatewise
- + Feelsinfofs joined Debatewise
- + Robert Jh joined Debatewise
- + Shelly joined Global Youth Panel
- + Mcocaves joined Debatewise
- + Salmoli joined Debatewise
- + Tiffany joined Debatewise
- + Kejmunoek joined Debatewise
- + Stephanie2ciis2 joined Debatewise
- + Robby Shapiro joined Debatewise
- + Arrevedot joined Debatewise
- + Penf Paws joined Debatewise
- + Chris Reinders joined Debatewise
- + Disputatio20@Gmail.Com joined Debatewise
- + Acitnerie joined Debatewise
- + Selihanov R joined Debatewise
- + Daniellwis joined Debatewise
- + Antuannyi joined Debatewise
- + Ryu joined Debatewise
- + Daniel430lee@Gmail.Com joined Debatewise
DO YOU THINK THAT IT IS REASONABLE THAT DEVELOPED AND FAST-DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SUCH AS CHINA AND INDIA CLAIM THAT THE TARGET OF 350PPM WOULD "RETARD ECONOMIC GROWTH"?
There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
Do you think that it is reasonable that developed and fast-developing countries such as China and India claim that the target of 350ppm would "retard economic growth"?
No, because... There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
The main focus has to be economic development: When you have money you can spend it in other areas; if money is not pouring in you cannot attend other areas of development since you cannot fund them.
The B.R.I.C reason for not being environmentally friendly is
1.Retarded economic growth means less money thus less power to make and achieve targets
2. The U.S won't budge while being much better off economically and also being crucial as a world leader, Why should countries with emerging economies 'give up' growth for the environment when since the U.S is not doing anything significant while not having to 'give up' anything?
How can there be sustainable development if the only focus is economic development?
Vote on this point: There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: Do you think that it is reasonable that developed and fast-developing countries such as China and India claim that the target of 350ppm would "retard economic growth"?
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. There cannot be development if there is not sustainability.
How can there be sustainable development if the only focus is economic development?
The main focus has to be economic development: When you have money you can spend it in other areas; if money is not pouring in you cannot attend other areas of development since you cannot fund them.
The B.R.I.C reason for not being environmentally friendly is
1.Retarded economic growth means less money thus less power to make and achieve targets
2. The U.S won't budge while being much better off economically and also being crucial as a world leader, Why should countries with emerging economies 'give up' growth for the environment when since the U.S is not doing anything significant while not having to 'give up' anything?