BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

It is through heavy industrialisation that developed countries are developed – since they contributed more to climate change, they have a greater obligation to resolve it. Climate change has largely been caused by long-term emissions by developed countries. While China is now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and other developing countries emissions are rapidly rising historically the vast majority of emissions have been from developed nations. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[1] As CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for a long time, about 50% will be removed within 30 years, but 20% or more may remain for thousands of years, the history of emissions is as relevant as current emissions.[2] Since they contribute more of the damage, and since each nation has a responsibility for the harm it has caused, developed nations have an increased obligation to combat climate change. [1] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions... [2] Inman, Mason, ‘Carbon is forever’, Nature Reports Climate Change, 20 November 2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns

Developing nations need to be allowed to develop without the burden of emission restrictions. Developed nations have been allowed to industrialize at whatever pace they wished, and through industrialization produce emissions. Despite having been polluting the atmosphere as a result of industrialization since the early 19th Century developed nations only began comprehensively limiting pollution after World War II in order to reduce smog through regulation such as the 1955 Air Pollution Control act and 1963 Clean Air Act in the United States[1] and many developed countries have yet to regulate their CO2 emissions. Having had free reign to develop for 200 years the developed nations need to take responsibility for those 200 years of irresponsibility while giving the developing world longer to clean up its act. The developing world at the same time has higher responsibilities that come first, for example to ensure that there is no one living in poverty. In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day,[2] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double,[3] should have to reduce its emissions by a similar amount and at the same time industrialise to pull these millions out of poverty. [1] Environmental Protection Agency, ‘History of the Clean Air Act’, 16 November 2010, http://epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html [2] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0 [3] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html
Developing countries have the biggest incentive to reduce emissions.

Developing countries are expected to be the countries which will suffer the worst effects of climate change, comparatively more developing countries are outside temperate zones so will be harder hit by rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns[1] therefore they have the greatest responsibility to change. Developing countries are suffering with increasing problems as a result of climate change such as crop failure and the spread of deserts, these are exacerbated by high rates of population growth meaning more people need to be catered for on a shrinking resource base. Unfortunately it is the case that countries that are less affected by climate change or who have the wealth to prevent the problems it causes are not going to take the lead in reducing emissions because they have no incentive to do so. Especially in democracies politicians have to respond to the wishes of their electorate and the electorate’s priority is never going to be people who are thousands of miles away and they will likely never meet. As it is developing countries who are in harm’s way of climate change it is the responsibility of their politicians to respond to their electorate and act to prevent climate change or reduce its impact. [1] ‘Climate Change & the World Bank’, The World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/climatechange/overview
Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

By taking on disproportionate amount of obligation, developed nations intrinsically claim that developing ones are not capable of finding solutions.  This is demeaning to developing countries by as it assumes that the developing world lacks the creativity and the innovation to lead the way on solving climate change. This approach is unlikely to incentivise developing nations to do their own research into cutting emissions. This will lead to less emission cuts over all as developing nations see that they are not considered capable of contributing. This is of course wrong, it is a view taken because the assumption is that the solutions are technological so the developed world with its large science and research infrastructure will have to be the ones to make the breakthroughs. This is however not always the case. Small solutions can potentially have a big effect in developing nations. For example changing cooking stoves in the developing world for only $25 per stove will not only improve health but will also cut emissions.[1] Other low cost solutions to climate change are just as likely to come from the developing world as from the developed world. [1] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010, http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/clinton_is_promoting_c...
Developed countries have a duty to lead by example

China and India, although developing nations, are actually very politically powerful. Both are G20 nations, and the G20 includes both developed and developing nations. They have sufficient potential for leadership due to their size and economic power and therefore could equally be an example to other nations. These countries would be a better example to other developing countries as the methods they use to tackle climate change would be directly applicable to other developing nations whereas action by developed nations is much more likely to take advantage of high tech solutions that may not be universally applicable.
The biggest emitters per capita will have the most impact when they reduce emissions

Many developing nations who are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are in fact using more fossil fuels per capita than developed nations who are attempting to cut down. Countries with large endowments of oil for example are profligate in its use so Qatar emitted 49.1 tons per capita. While China’s emissions of 5.3 tones is much less than the United States there are other developed countries that produce similar amounts such as Switzerland at 5.3 and Israel at 5.2 tons per capita. Nations such as China and India could make an equally meaningful contribution due to their sheer size but also because incorporating green energy into the industries in a still developing nation is easier than trying to change a developed one. These counties will need to build new power plants anyway as they experience more demand for electricity, they might as well make these new plants green
States have no responsibility to other states

While states may theoretically be sovereign and have supreme authority in practice nations do not exist in vacuum. Due to many international agreements such as Kyoto Protocol and international bodies such as UN, countries do have shared legal responsibilities. Many developed states have already accepted that there are "common but differentiated responsibilities" having signed up to the Kyoto protocol.[1] This means that they have acknowledged a shared responsibility for solving climate change and have accepted that commitments will vary from country to country. The implication is that this will depend upon historical contributions to the problem and the ability to devote resources to tackle the problem,[2] both of which would mean more responsibility for developed nations. [1] United Nations, ‘Article 3 Principles’, Full text of the convention, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1355.php [2] Stavins, Robert, ‘Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments’, An Economic View of the Environment, Harvard Kennedy School Belfast Centre for Science and International Affairs, 29 November 2009, http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/11/29/a-portfolio-of-domestic-comm...
Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful

Individual action will never work without government intervention and government intervention requires some countries to take responsibility. Individuals will take the easiest option or the cheapest option. At the moment these options involve more pollution. For example cars are the easy option for transportation – and without government intervention to create comprehensive and cheap public transport systems individuals will never switch away from their cars. Businesses will take the cheapest way to make their products, which means polluting unless the government imposes a cost on them for doing so. Individual action therefore first needs prompting by government if it is to have an impact beyond a small minority.
The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be global and involve everyone

The very fact that pollution emissions from one country affect everywhere is what makes it possible for one country to be more responsible than another. Countries that have contributed more of the pollution to the global commons than their fair share should be obliged to clean up that global commons. While rich nations reductions might be offset by developing countries increases in the short term in the long run developing nations will need to reduce their emissions in exactly the same way. They simply need more time and can take advantage of not being responsible for the current pollution.
Developed countries have a duty to lead by example

The most developed nations are also the most powerful in the international community; they have a duty to lead by example. Even if India and China are rapidly rising the developed countries between them are still the most powerful economies. If developing nations perceive that more developed ones are not acting to combat climate change, they will have no imperative to act. This is because some developing countries such as China or India want to maximize their development capacity in order to compete with developed countries. They are only likely to cut carbon emissions if those developed nations they compete with do so first – that way their attempt to compete is not jeopardised. The climate change talks that have achieved relatively little have shown this to be the case – China has only shown willing to do a deal if the United States commits itself first.
The biggest emitters per capita will have the most impact when they reduce emissions

Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China’s 5.3 tons per person,[1] and therefore a reduction from these nations is both easier and has a greater impact than from developing nations. Countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce these emissions through lifestyle changes that do not reduce citizens quality of life, for example simply by reducing the amount they drive – walking or going by bike when only going a short distance – whereas for developing nations reductions either have to work out ways of doing things more efficiently or accept that living standards will be affected as most people’s lifestyles are already low carbon, the challenge is to keep it that way while improving quality of life. [1] ‘CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)’, The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
States have no responsibility to other states

States are sovereign meaning they are the supreme authority within a territory,[1] increasingly it is seen as the people who are sovereign through a social contract where the government rules by consent of the people[2] but significantly this is still internal to the state. They are therefore not responsible to other states. If a state exists to protect and improve the lives of its own citizens then there is no obligation for any state whether developed or developing to take on responsibility for combating climate change , all the more so when this would harm its own citizens interests or wellbeing. Developed countries may have an obligation to their own citizens to do what they can to prevent climate change but this obligation is no higher than the governments of developing states to their own peoples. Otherwise because of state sovereignty the only obligation that states may have to each other are those that they enter into freely through a treaty where they agree to bind themselves[3] however developed states will not enter into a treaty where they accept a higher obligation to combat climate change because it would be against their own interests. This is exactly why negotiations towards a binding treaty on climate change is not getting anywhere.[4] [1] Philpott, Dan, ‘Sovereignty’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/sovereignty/ [2] Tuckness, Alex, ‘Locke's Political Philosophy’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/locke-political/ [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p.88, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cc3XzkFt-IUC [4] Walt, Stephen M., ‘What happened in Copenhagen’, ForeignPolicy.com, 21 December 2009, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/21/what_happened_in_copenhagen
The veil is a symbol of oppression on women

Face coverings in particular divide men and women. Face veil is seen by some as a symbol of the oppression of women, because in some countries it is mandatory, as was the case in Afghanistan under the Taliban. When worn in Europe, with equality and democracy, it can be seen as a rejection of such oppression – this is why Belgium banned it[1]. Islamic dress rules are often stricter for women than men. [1] BBC News, ‘Belgian ban on full veils comes into force’, 23 July 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14261921
It causes problems in schools

Like in society as a whole, religious symbols are divisive. It marks some out as different from the others, which could cause bullying. They may also be impractical for PE, technology or science lessons where they get in the way. Face veils also mean that people’s lips cannot be seen when they are speaking, which can cause problems with communication (especially with any D/deaf people who lip read). For this reason, a UK court considered it reasonable for a school to not permit a teacher to teach while wearing a face veil[1]. [1] BBC News, ‘School sacks woman after veil row’, 24 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6179842.stm. See court case listed higher up for full legal decision (resource for teachers).
It causes division within society

Religious symbols, such as the veil divide society. When some Muslim women wear the veil, it creates pressure on others to do so as well. Pressure comes from wanting to fit in, and pressure from other people in the community seeing those who don’t wear the veil as being somehow less religious. Allowing it in schools makes it more visible to non-Muslims, making them more likely to perceive it as a core part of the faith. It then gives the impression to outsiders that Islam is more extreme than it really is.
A ban would be easy to enforce

As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France[1] and Turkey[2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face. This could be enforced by teachers, not police. [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3619988.stm [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7239330.stm
It’s a personal matter – it doesn’t concern others

Wearing religious and cultural symbols are a matter of personal choice. Getting the government involved in such a personal matter is a breach of privacy. The Belgian ban has been unpopular amongst some people because those who want to wear it are being limited to staying within their homes. In France a ban on the burqa has led to increasing abuse of those who do wear it; 94% of victims of anti-Muslim physical and verbal abuse are women.[1] [1] Irving, Helene, ‘France’s “Burqa Ban” Enforcing Not Solving Inequality’, Open Society Foundations, 13 April 2012, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/france-s-burqa-ban-enforcing-not-solving-inequality
If you ban it, you have to ban everything else

If one form of religious symbolism is banned, it would be difficult to justify not banning others. If the government considers face coverings which would be seen as an attack on Muslims (while only a small minority of Muslim women wear them, they are not popular in other faiths apart from for specific uses). If the motive for such a ban is integration and uniformity, items such as the Sikh turban and potentially the Christian cross should be banned as well.
It causes problems in schools

Intolerant schools are a problem because they don’t allow freedom of religious expression. In a free society, pupils should appreciate the different faiths of their fellow pupils and respect them. Without that respect, they may just end up going to separate schools which is even more divisive[1]. As for safety, it also prevents some potential hazards such as hair getting caught in machines or flames, which when hidden won’t be a problem. [1] The Economist, ‘Faiths and schools Religious rights and wrongs, 4 September 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/12070447
It causes division within society

No-one is in a vacuum – everyone has social pressures affecting what they wear. Banning veils itself is divisive and will create strong reactions in highly religious communities[1]. Framing laws that only ban the veil could be seen as an attack on Islam, and lead Muslim communities to think they are being unfairly targeted. The result will be that they won’t co-operate with people of other faiths. This would be bad for society and make extremists more influential. [1] Huffington Post, ‘France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws in Europe’, 4 November 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/burqa-policies-europe_n_847575.html#s263174&title=France_
A ban on the veil is just a way of targeting Muslims

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil.[1] [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0
It’s a personal matter – it doesn’t concern others

The veil is a visible symbol intended to be seen by others so it is clearly not just personal. It could be used to conceal identity, for example in the UK a group of robbers disguised themselves in burqas to steal over a million pounds of watches in Selfridges[1]. [1] Davenport, Justin, ‘Selfridges 'burka gang' detectives arrest five men in dawn raids’, London Evening Standard, 22 October 2013, http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/selfridges-burka-gang-detectives-arrest-five-men-in-dawn-raids-8896307.html
Uniting for Peace

One interesting possibility that could help short circuit the problems on the Security Council that prevents action either through UN Security Council action or through the Responsibility to Protect would be to take the case to the UN General Assembly. There was a resolution in 1950 that “Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”[1] The General Assembly is clearly the more legitimate body, and it also does not have the problem of vetos. It is however unlikely that UN Security Council members France, the UK, and the USA would want to create such a precedent.[2] [1] ‘Uniting for peace’, General Assembly – Fifth Session, 377, 3rd November 1950, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/377%28V%29 [2] Dapo Akande, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169
There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others

Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”[1] With Iraq it was once again a norm against WMD with Tony Blair arguing “UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.”[2] This means that the nation that is going to engage in offensive action is attempting to prevent the breach of one international norm against certain weapons by breaching a norm against unauthorised military action. In Kosovo it was even more hypocritical; NATO acted to make sure Milsovic “honor his own commitments and stop his repression” with the intent that “if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.”[3] So we will protect the norm against conflict by initiating a conflict of our own. Defending one international norm by breaching another is both pointless, because it undermines all norms, and hypocritical because it says those norms apply only to someone else. [1] President Obama, ‘TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Aug. 31 statement on Syria’, The Washington Post, 31 August 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-31/politics/41635689_1_chemical-weapons-president-obama-regime [2] ‘Full transcript of Blair's speech’, BBC News, 20 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2870581.stm [3] Clinton, Bill, ‘Statement on Kososvo’, Miller Center University of Virginia, 24 March 1999, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3932