One of the most discussed issues in the world today is global warming. It was caused by years of harmful emissions around the world. If something isn't done to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released 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 has the potential to cause the extinction of numerous animal species. Additionally, many areas that depend on their crops will not be able to grow them due to a change in precipitation or an increase or decrease in temperature. On top of that, deadly tropical diseases will be able to spread to new parts of the world. The current approach to addressing the problem of global warming is devising a way in which the cost of alleviating the progression of global warming is equitably distributed among countries that have emitted greenhouse gases. Suppose that the rich, industrialized countries of the United Nations have established a specific cost for the measures that will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a harmless level, which they all agree on. The problem arises in the methodology for dividing the specific cost fairly among the nations responsible for global warming. Today, there are two popular views on what is the right way to split costs. The first requires each nation to pay a portion of the total cost estimated based on the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions over the nation's history. The second view states that each nation pays a portion of the total estimated cost based on its total greenhouse gas emissions since these emissions are known to have a harm… 50 units. This is 5 units less than Nation A and this is because Nation B has reduced its gas emissions while Nation A has increased its gas emissions. In conclusion, I find that both currently popular solutions to the problem of global warming are unfair as they have shared the costs of alleviating the damage done to the environment. It is unfair not to take responsibility for one's actions, and it is also unfair to inflict the same punishment on people who are knowingly doing something wrong and on people who had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. The only fair way to solve this problem is to weight the value of emissions for each time period just as was done in the third methodology. This methodology not only arrived at an adequate middle ground, but also addressed other important factors that the first two viewpoints had not addressed.