Bangladesh is a very poor country so cant afford adaption and mitigation of the effects of climate change so needs the help. Bangladesh's GDP per capita is only $1500 even at purchasing power parity and is considerably lower in real dollars. The adaption and mitigation costs for a country with the geography of Bangladesh would be immense, how does a country where most of the country is liable to flooding by sea or river adapt, they just dont have the high ground to move too.

There are many other countries that are equally poor, no single one of these desperately poor countries should be able to demand how much it gets.

Bangladesh has a population of 156million people, this dwarf the member states of the Association of Small Island States as a whole, Grenada for example has a population of 90,000 and it is not the smallest. The sheer number of Bangladeshis mean that they should come first when creating anadaptation fund. As State Minister of Environment and Forest Hasan Mahmud put it "The population of our one coastal district is bigger than the entire population of all island countries and in that consideration at least 15 percent of any climate fund should come to us."^[1]

1. ^ http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2879

Bangladesh needs to recieve more of an adaptation fund simply because the consequences are so much greater. Bangladesh slowly sinking under the waves would mean tens of millions of refugees. These refugees could not easily be accomodated in Bangladesh, already one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Neighbouring West Bengal in India is similarly poor and densely populated so cant take the refugees. The cost of housing and relocating such numbers of refugees would be immense, by comparison the population of theAoSIS could be rehoused with reletive ease.

Just because the consequences are greater in terms of numbers does not mean that Bangladesh should be able to claim large quantities of the fund. At least Bangladesh will still exist as a nation whereas some of the small island states will not.

It is arguably the hardest hit nation at the hands of Climate change and therefore must/should be compensated and aided with the largest proportion of funds.

Nobody's saying other countries should 'NOT be compensated at all', Bangladesh is asking for at least 15% not 100%

Although, the oil-drilling(largely responsible for the climate crisis, earthquake frequency/strength-escalation,rise in sea levels and not to mention pollution from oil spills) countries shouldn't be getting funding, since they have made a lot of money out of ruining the ecosystem.

And thus owe the world compensation for creating/aggravating the climate crisis not the other way around.

Other countries should be compensated.

Ecuador has been stopped/ceased from making millions(U.S.D) from drilling oil from the Amazon forests in the name of saving the environment; the world owes Ecuador, millions for her (albeit coerced/forced under international pressure) 'act of good will'.

But according to most calculated estimates Bangladesh will suffer the most(by a landslide) and therefore should be granted the largest cut of the funds.

Millions of people suffer from H.I.V/AIDS in South Africa , thousands in Europe. Would it be near rational to give both continents an 'equal number of AIDS-related-funds/aid or retro-viral drugs?? NO, it would not.

Egalitarianism is just, when suffering is ALSO equal.

It is only just that a country that takes on the greatest toll of the climate crisis get the largest cut/slice/portion of all climate change/crisis- funds.

Most estimates suggest Bangladesh will suffer 30% of the wrath of the climate crisis, but the country is only asking for at least half of that amount in funds.

Bangladesh is but one country among about 150 countries with a coastline who are going to be affected to a greater or lesser extent by rising sea levels. Many may not be affected as much or need so much money however they may need some, taking 15% out of the fund at the start means that that money is locked. It would make much more sense to take money out of the fund to give to the best schemes as the money is needed rather than allocating money by committee at a conference.

Flooding is however the most costly.

Especially in the case of Bangladesh which is economically dependent on Agriculture and Fisheries.Flooding eats away these industries like moisture/humidity turns Iron to rust.

To adapt to flooding requires either rebuilding homes or building costly flood defences/defenses(a better option to conserve Bangladesh's economy.)

We should not just consider sea level rises when creating the adaption fund, there are many other potential effects of climate change that will affect a much wider spread of countries and a much greater swathe of people.Extreme weather, droughts leading to famine , hurricanes etc are all going to affect millions of people. Flooding is therefore not the only effect of climate change that we need to

Don't be pessimistic all of Bangladesh will not be flooded.

Let us be positive and assume funding can avert/thwart the crisis with building of a construct similar to the Thames barrier( a more durable version:One that lasts as a defense against floods, longer)

alternatively funds can be used to build many flood-proofed earthquake-proofed sky-rise condominiums(when there's no space on the horizontal, go vertical)

Either way Bangladesh will need a lot of money and international support in terms of technological efficiency/skills.

Flood victims, not the 'entire' Bangladeshi population, but certainly a significant number of flood victims will be displaced. India is the main Country bordering Bangladesh , and is already the second most populated country in the world.

Extra time,money and effort need be applied to make sure that displaced populations are housed and taken good care of.

The climate crisis has already begun and more flooding will occur, a small part of Bangladesh is already under water(Bangladesh is already partially inundated).

Bangladesh is too densely populated to rehouse displaced people. India is also very densely populated but economically better-off and would necessarily have to take responsibility, for this 'India' will need funding not Bangladesh.

Burma/Myanmar is another neighbor that will/may have to cater to displaced populations.

counter argument: But isn't it a little too optimistic(leaning on delusion), to assume there will be NO displacement whatsoever?!

People are making such a hubris against at least 15% being too large a cut, how will they react to 30%?

Bangladesh will suffer 30% of the entire caustic/terrible/horrific/horrible effects of the climate crisis, Why should they settle for just: at least 15%?

Inefficient handling of funds:

Can Bangladesh be trusted with money? Bangladesh is notoriously fairly corrupt^[1][2]

Albeit recent articles show that she is trying not to be. The current constituency has attacked corruption head on with impressively successful results.But is this welcome change only temporary, for show and tell; will Bangladesh continue the current trend of cessating of corruption after an exorbitant payoff?^[3][4][5][6]

1. ^ http://www.ti-bangladesh.org/docs/research/CorBang1.htm
2. ^ http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/18-bangladesh-struggles-to-control-corruption-am-13
3. ^ http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/11/19/bangladesh-corruption-reduction-policy-under-question/
4. ^ ^ http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/08/bangladesh-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2009/0401/p06s15-wosc.html
5. ^ http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/08/bangladesh-1.html