Ladies and gentlemen, the affirmative side would like us to believe that supertyphoons, like Yolanda,

and future extreme natural disasters are directly attributable to anthropogenic global warming resulting
in climate change blah blah blah. We, along with the reality before us BEG TO DISAGREE.
THE SOLID TRUTH: there is no necessity for the approval by the United Nations of a loss and damage
mechanism which requires developed countries to compensate developing countries which are prone to
natural disasters due to redundancy, false attribution and non-liability. The following points pose a
revelation:
FIRST, redundancy. The creation of a new mechanism for the purpose of compensating the loss and
damage obtained by developing countries during natural disasters is superfluous. Addressing the
problem of loss and damage is already covered in the mechanism of adaptation. Adaptation refers to
adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli
and their effects or impacts. Aside from the overlapping and redundancy of functions of these
mechanisms, there is also fund redundancy. Why should there be another fund for compensation when
there are regional institutional arrangements which give grants to developing countries in times when
they are hit with natural disasters? Like in the Asia Pacific, there is the Pacific Catastrophe Risk
Assessment and Financing Initiative which aim to provide governments with immediate funding when a
major natural disaster occurs.
SECOND, false attribution. It is clear that the affirmative is confused as to the difference between slow
onset events and extreme weather events: two separately defined environmental concerns. These
extreme natural disasters are not directly attributable to climate change brought by anthropogenic
global warming. In the 5
th
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
Conventions scientific body, it is not likely, and in fact, they are of low confidence as to human's
contribution to the intensifying natural disasters, more specifically on the increase in the intense
cyclone activity. Even through the present scientific means - there still remains a stark impossibility in
identifying whether a certain weather hazard is associated with anthropogenic global warming or simply
a random weather event. Even the countrys representative in the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change is uncertain whether Yolanda is actually connected with climate change. This being said,
developed countries although deemed primarily responsible for climate change, it doesnt follow that
developed countries are wholly and solely responsible for the calamities as well as the catastrophes
which hit and will hit these developing countries - thus, the recognized concept of shared responsibility.
Possible question: not directly liable
THIRD, non-liability. Principle 13 of the Rio Convention promotes the concept of liability and
compensation in the field of public international law in relation to the adverse effects of environmental
damage. However, this is not the case here. As mentioned earlier, developed countries are not wholly
and solely responsible for these natural disasters, thus it cannot be gainsaid, that they are not directly
liable for whatever loss and damage these developing countries obtained and will be obtained.
Furthermore, the rapid increase in the amount of their losses from extreme natural events, according it
the Convention, is also caused by these developing countries adaptation deficit or maladaptation
which takes place when the property and activities are insufficiently adapted to current climate,
including its variability and extremes. Therefore, it follows that these developing countries are not
entitled to any compensation from the developed countries. Trail Smelter case:

--jargons
--definition of natural disasters, extreme natural disasters, basis
-- concept of civil law on the concept of civil liability