THBT High Emission Country should Financially Aid developing countries to reduce soot

I want to start by thanking Pro for instigating this thought-provoking challenge. The resolution is clear: THBT High Emission Countries should Financially Aid developing countries to reduce soot. Since my opponent is Pro, she will have the full burden of proof to show why high emission countries should financially aid developing countries to reduce soot. On the flip side, I merely have to rebut her arguments which will negate her chances of maintaining the BOP. I will most likely include additional counter-arguments that are aimed at negating the resolution instead of merely rebutting her points. RebuttalsI. High emission countries affect developing countries via global climate change.I do not know which countries Pro is talking about. I've googled "high-emission countries" and get various results depending on the source. I ask Pro to please define which countries are which and to present a list of the countries so that I know which countries to address throughout this debate. Without that list, I cannot verify which countries are being negatively affected by others. So far, this is nothing but an abstract claim backed by zero clarification or evidence. II. High emission country financially aiding Kenya for Solar power systems. What I gathered from my opponents poor spelling and grammar was that high emission countries should help finance a country-wide solar energy system for Kenya. I do not see a realistic means for achieving this due to many variables which seem lost to Pro. Pro fails to consider that if a country had the means to finance such an endeavor, they'd most likely have done it for their own country as well. Yet, considering they are still a high emission country, it's likely they haven't the means to even bring down their own emission levels, much less help a massive country like Kenya. First off, I'd need to know which country Pro expects to do this. Secondly, we need to consider if said country even has the means to do so. Lastly, Kenya already has a plan in motion to have the country generate over half of its electricity through solar power by 2016. [1] [1] http://www.theguardian.com...After reading the article, it seems like they don't need any outside help since the government has already striked contracts with the private sector to fund half while they fund the other half. III. Developing country will use the aid to invent renewable energy.My opponent believe that receiving aid automatically means someone will invent a source of renewable energy. It simply isn't that... simple. First off, the developing country would need to have the means for inventing a new source of renewable energy. This isn't just money either but also equipment, trained scientists and engineers, and an energy source that isn't already capitalized or controlled by entities already existing in their nation. My opponent says "the poverty will use the renewable energy to produce something they can sell with cheaper production cost". While I'm not too sure what that means, if I take it at face value that the poverty-stricken will invent such a thing, then I can say Pro needs to prove it. Prove to both me and the audience how the poverty-stricken has the means to achieve such a feat, otherwise, this is nothing but baseless claims backed by no evidence whatsoever. IV. ...the uses of fossil-fuel , natural gas, and coal will be tripling by 2050...My opponent makes this claim, but never backs it up with evidence to validate the claim itself. Without evidence to support a claim like this, it stands as nothing more than an opinion. I also fail to see how this will be due to high emission countries failing to financially aid developing nations. My opponent shows no correlation or causation to back up this claim. V. ...it will make the environment get worser and worser...My opponent states that none of the developing countries could decrease emission rates without the financial aid of high emission countries which would then lead to the destruction of our earth and biotics population due to the global anomaly problem...I'm not sure how to respond.Pro has failed to provide any proof showing that these countries can't decrease emission rates on their own. Pro has failed to provide any proof showing that our world will be destroyed if the aid isn't given. Pro has given no references to show us what this global anomaly problem is... which after a Google search is still a mystery to me. This entire line of argumentation falls flat due to these reasons. Pro would need to provide proof and references in the next round for this argument to be considered valid at this point. Neg-Case ArgumentsI was initially planning to spend this section providing some arguments which serve to directly negate the resolution. At this point though, due to the low quality found in every one of Pro's arguments, I will hold off on doing so until Pro can overcome the challenges presented in each of my rebuttals first. With this said, there are three arguments I will present in later rounds should Pro manage to defeat each challenge I've presented in my rebuttals. If Pro fails to do this, she fails to maintain her BOP and will rightfully lose the debate due to her inability to affirm the resolution. In closing, I have provided rebuttals to each of the five arguments presented by Pro. Pro needs to present some serious proof for each of those arguments and references for other less clear aspects of her arguments such as the global anomaly problem. With these challenges presented, I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you.