There is scheduled to be a major conference to be held a month from now in Copenhagen, Denmark to build a new climate treaty. I personally am really glad that this is taking place because the United States is being given another chance to take part in the international fight against global warming after refusing to take part in the Kyoto Protocol nearly 12 years ago.
This new treaty is being based largely off of the Kyoto Protocol and is to be seen as the successor to the it. One notable change that is proposed to be added to this treaty is for the participation of developing countries, as well as developed countries to reduce their carbon emissions. This fills in one of the major holes that the Kyoto Protocol had. However, this also means that the developed countries will also have to take part in supporting the developed countries, which for the United States at this time, may not be possible due to the current economic condition.
Here are some of the important issues negotiators from all over the world are discussing:
"— emission-reduction targets by 2020 from industrialized nations,
— plans by developing countries to limit a growth in their greenhouse emissions,
— short- and long-term funding from rich countries, and
— “an equitable structure to manage and deploy that money.”"
Although I think that it is really great that the United States is finally starting to attempt to take action against climate change, I do agree with the point that pessimistic Stanford University climate scientist, Stephen Schneider, points out.
"Schneider says the world is good at mobilizing to protect itself — at least when people get sufficiently scared that their planet is in peril."
Schneider believes that only a great catastrophe that takes place will finally convince people around the world that global warming is happening. He references the drafting of the Montreal Protocol as an example:
"The Montreal Protocol didn’t develop as soon as pollution’s threat to Earth’s protective blanket of stratospheric ozone emerged, he points out. It was only after researchers began imaging a newfound annual thinning of ozone above Antarctica, he says, that leaders rushed to draft the ozone treaty."
Now it's hard to disagree that humans tend to repeat their mistakes and that this may be another instance where we again repeat the mistake of not agreeing to a treaty to reduce carbon emissions, but what else is there to do but be optimistic and hope for the best for this treaty?
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
Link to article embedded in title.
.jpg)
