One of the most talked about problems in the world today is global warming. This is due to years of harmful emissions all over the world. If nothing is done to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted each year, serious climate change is on the horizon. The average temperature of the entire Earth is expected to increase by about 3.4°F. This change in temperature could lead to the disappearance of many animal species. Additionally, many regions that rely on their crops will be unable to grow them due to either a change in precipitation or an increase or decrease in temperature. In addition to this, deadly tropical diseases will be able to spread to new regions of the world. The current approach to solving this problem of global warming is to find a way in which the cost of mitigating the progression of global warming is fairly distributed among different countries. countries that have emitted greenhouse gases. Suppose that the rich, industrialized countries of the United Nations have set a precise cost for the measures that will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a harmless level, on which they all agree. The problem arises in the methodology for fairly distributing the specific cost between the countries responsible for global warming. Today, there are two common views on how to fairly distribute costs. The first states that each nation pays a proportion of the total cost estimated based on its total greenhouse gas emissions over its history. The second view states that each nation pays a proportion of the total estimated cost based on its total greenhouse gas emissions, because these emissions are known to have a negative impact on paper. 50 units. This is 5 units less than nation A and it is because nation B decreased its gas emissions while nation A increased its gas emissions. In conclusion, I find that both currently popular solutions to the problem of global warming are unfair in the sense that they spread the costs of mitigating environmental damage. It is unfair not to take responsibility for your actions, and it is also unfair to give the same punishment to people who knowingly do something wrong and to people who have no idea what they are doing bad. The only fair way to solve this problem is to weight the value of emissions for each period, as was done in the third methodology. This methodology not only struck a happy medium, but also addressed other important factors that the first two views did not address..