Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The US and Australia evidently discern so little danger from global warming that they see no need to curb their carbon dioxide emissions ("Paradise islands: will the world act to save them?", 24 November). Presumably, then, they would not mind signing up to a scheme to compensate people and nations adversely affected in the future, in "the unlikely event" that global warming proves to be a real threat.
It should not be beyond human imagination to come up with a scheme whereby nations emitting significant levels of carbon dioxide would share the liability based on, say, the total amounts of the gas that each would have emitted since 1990.
In some cases, cash payments might be enough; but for the millions displaced by rising sea levels, alternative citizenship might have to be offered. This really would give Australia a reason to consider its sustainable population level.
JIM HART
Edinburgh
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments