Climate Change Debate | Peter Lilley MP | Proposition
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2016
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes The West Has No Right to Impose Environmental Standards on Developing Countries
Peter Lilley MP continues the case for the proposition, as the third speaker of six in the debate.
Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden since 1983. A former Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, he served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under Margaret Thatcher, and currently serves on the Environmental Audit Select Committee.
The motion was defeated.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Excellent analysis by the right hon. Peter Lilley. The African people deserve a higher standard of living. Why should the rich countries be the only ones to benefit from plentiful electricity . What is also important to note is that developing countries relies heavily on burning vegetation including wood which is the worst kind of energy for the environment.
Brilliant beginning...lol
"Sunny countries like Africa..." Hopefully the president chastised him for that one...
Why don't we talk about the actual reasons, the roots of Climate change and related impacts.... It starts with the development of Industrial growth, started and evolved in the west. Simply put: This reason, is enough for this argument that "the west has no right to impose any climate (related) regulations, indeed we need to work as a global community and all nations should work, act and do whatever they can, but imposing regulations....... Doesn't really make sense ...! Studying environmental science, climate science, industrialization and related event of the human history and it's current state of the arts,...... I find this idea very wrong, immoral and irresponsible.
Madly myopic. What good is a coal power station for South Africa if they can't grow food. If supply chains for food fail for just three days, society collapses. Multiple bread-basket failure is the cost of climate change. Let's hope at his age Peter has an allotment ready for that future. His fossil fuel lobbying has made it more likely.
sorry buddy but it's a debate about climate change, not abolishing the poor.
Well you can't cut climate change without cutting pollution.
You can't cut pollution without cutting production and development.
You can't cut production and development when millions of people are still living like pessants.
Developing countries will not cut production if there is no other way for them to achieve the level of development in the developed countries.
This is like when the countries with nukes try to stop other countries from getting them.
But many try to get them just beucase other countries have them, beucase they want to be on an equal footing.
"sorry children, we tried to solve climate change but too many rich people let other rich people get richer by burning more fossil fuel. they all seemed to think that the poor stop being poor when you let the earth burn."
'god grandad, you talk such rubbish, there's no poor people on this ship and earth it's just a fairy tale'
+TheCausation what, not enough ethnic cleansing of Europe for you? not enough irrationality?
not enough rubbish to have a argument sink to your level?
good.
fatsamcastle
We live under capitalism, so obviously develoments benefits them more. But the condtions of everyone in the developed nations got better becuase of it. Unless you want to introduce a different socioeconomic model where the developing nations achieve what the developed nations had you are talking shit.
Don't get me wrong by going in this direction we will probably cause a global ecological crysis and kill millions. But that's capitalism.
There is no other way within this economic model for developed nations to catch up.
+RealTalk but, I understand the reason for global warming, and why everyone should be doing as much as possible to stop it.
saying undeveloped nations need more fossil fuels to develop isn't strictly true, as there are other ways of getting energy, and simply saying that it'll pull the poor out of poverty is a fallacy.
and many many under developed nations are happy to help solve climate change.
many underveloped countries that get aid, get help to develop and want to follow the developed countries are also highly corrupt, which is why they are struggling and the populations are in poverty, giving the corrupt more money won't help the poor.
What's the motion?
This House Believes The West Has No Right to Impose Environmental Standards on Developing Countries
Very sensible good work
toad tickling his cronies.