Contention between these two global groups relies on the assumption that \u201cwhile climate change has been largely caused by wealthy industrialized parts of the world, it is the least developed areas of the world that will suffer its worst consequences\u201d (Bulkeley & Newell 29). In this way, the needs of the less-developed areas are just as important as industrialized countries in governing climate change.<\/p>\n
Bulkeley and Newell cite, amongst others, three main sources of tension amongst North and South countries:<\/p>\n
1.) Developed countries are obligated by law (Kyoto Protocol<\/a>) to reduce their emissions. Should developing countries also take responsibility for their own emissions?<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.) Which populations are the most vulnerable to climate change?<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.) Who is represented at the climate change negotiations? Which scientists contribute information to the current understanding of climate change?<\/strong><\/p>\n These issues are so contentious because not only do they determine the future for populations who may have no representation in climate change negotiations, but they also shape the way in which the negotiations are formed. Which states feature scientists who collaborate with the IPCC?<\/a> Which states have the monetary means to attend climate negotiations? Low-lying, coastal, and island nations are currently the most vulnerable to climate change,<\/a> but also the least represented internationally. Who will represent their concerns? Finally, all states should take responsibility for their own emissions, but some states do not have the level of economic development to do so. In the end, the UNFCCC<\/a> standards of maintaining \u201ccommon but differentiated responsibility\u201d (UNFCCC<\/a>) should reign.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/files\/2011\/09\/350_Earth_Global_Climate_Art_Project_350_org01_-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>