(Source: Reuters)
In New York yesterday, dozens of high profile leaders of many nations throughout the world were present as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli also made statements. This meeting was crucial because since the Kyoto Protocol's expiration in 2012, no new measures or promises have been made to combat the rising dangers presented by climate change.
The biggest point that needed to be made in this meeting was the assertion that significant changes, enough to reverse the effects of climate change, will not happen if we are unable to acquire the participation of every country in the world -- NOT just developed countries. In the past, developing/undeveloped countries like China and India received a free pass from participating in the Kyoto Protocol and promising to reach certain goals of cutting their annual emissions by a certain date "because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change." However, today's circumstances require that all countries must participate and make a conscious effort to reduce carbon emissions and operate on a much more efficient track than ever before, including developing country's. China is especially important in this, as the country with the largest population and fastest growing economy in the world, as well as one of the most heavily polluted countries, despite its "developing country" status.
Mr. Zhang has assured us that China will make an effort to cut its emissions of carbon per unit of GDP by a substantial 45%, marking one of the first times that China has promised to make an effort to take action against its emissions. As positive as this is, it is undercut by the fact that Chinese President Xi Jinping was not even present at the summit. As someone who took APES last year, it hurts to hear that despite significant evidence supporting the presence of climate change and the danger that it presents, many countries are still refusing to take this threat seriously.
Here are my questions:
1) Do you think that the problems addressed in the summit will be addressed soon?
2) What are some viable solutions that you can think of to help cut emissions?
3) Is there any significance behind the absence of the Chinese president and others?
4) What is your general opinion on climate change and the actions (or inactions) that have been taken by countries around the world?
6 comments:
I don't think that China's pollution issues will be instantaneously changed, but now that China is considered a 'highly developed' nation more countries will be pressuring China to make an effort, especially now that the Kyoto Protocol is being replaced by new policies. Chinese factories are notorious for bad practices, such as dumping dangerous waste in nearby rivers. Setting strict regulations on these factories could reduce China's emissions. I'm not sure if the absence of China's president was a sign that the issue is not important to the Chinese government. It is possible he was busy at the time, although a personal statement from him would probably be preferable to a government representative.
Fortunately, a new treaty on carbon emissions regulations is said to be arranged around the year 2015 and enforced in 2020. Even if it is established successfully, some important countries may be missing. As stated above, China and India have claimed that they are not responsible for climate change, even though emission levels from China have surpassed all other nations’. Representatives from the countries emitting the most carbon such as China, India, Russia, and Japan (including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping) even missed out on the U.N. climate summit. As Cameron stated, China’s president could have been busy, but his lack of attendance shows that China, and the other countries who did not send representatives, may not be truly dedicated to changing its environmental policy, despite the Chinese vice premier’s promise.
I am not sure that China will make the necessary effort required to cut emissions. In order to keep the growing middle class happy and politically stable, China's economy has to continue to grow at a fast pace. This will be difficult to achieve if emissions guidelines are put in place, especially since manufacturing is about 30 percent of China's GDP. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/manufacturing-value-added-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html)
Thankfully, India seems more likely to commit to global emissions standards, since their economy focuses more on the service sector (CIA World Factbook). Thus, restrictions on manufacturing will not do as much damage to their economy as it would to China's economy.
@Cameron China is certainly not considered a "highly developed" nation. According to the CIA it has the 97th highest GDP (PPP) per capita: somewhere between Libya and Jamaica.
It would be crazy for the developing world to cripple its growth by implementing restrictions that didn't exist for the US during its industrialization process. For many developing nations "climate change" does (and should) get dumped into the "first world problems" file, or better yet, the g̶a̶r̶b̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ recycling bin.
Check out this article from the climate economist Robert Murphy (paid by the evil energy companies that get you to school every day). It addresses how even when taking many of the UN's own numbers/studies for God's truth, the benefits of many proposed restrictions do not justify the economic costs.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/using-ipcc-defeat-un-climate-agenda/
I think that at some point down the line climate change and environmental degradation will be forced to the forefront of global issues, and the international community will have no choice but to address it on a global scale; however I sadly don't think we're at that point yet. Although I think the issue deserves more recognition than it is given--from both a governmental and local/individual standpoint--I almost feel like it would take some unthinkable and catastrophic event with widespread and unavoidable consequences before people move environmental preservation to the top of their agendas. As much as I'd like to think that environmental issues trumped economic ones, you're all right by saying that governments have a responsibility to keep the people happy, which means economic growth. But regarding the article Jeremiah presented, it seemed like the authors focus almost exclusively on the economic effects of temperature increases alone, even though there are other pressing environmental matters besides those resulting from "climate change" that could also affect global economics. For instance global water shortages combined with over-pumping of groundwater and growing population will definitely have an increased if not drastic effect on future economics unless they are quickly addressed, as so much water is required for food production and industry.
Post a Comment