For the past two weeks, diplomats from over 200 nations have come together in Glasgow, Scotland for COP26, the annual UN climate change conference. In an effort to keep our global warming to under 1.5 degrees celsius until 2100, the agreement outlined specific steps that the nations needed to take. Some highlights include reducing carbon dioxide emissions by nearly half by 2030, slowing down the use of methane, as well as keeping countries accountable for the promises they make.
However, an area of major controversy was the subject of coal, the most harmful fossil fuel. For the first time ever, the reduction of coal usage was included in the wording of the agreement. Countries like Switzerland, Mexico, and the Marshall Islands strongly urged the inclusion of “phasing out” coal completely. However, India and China made a minute decision to reduce such wording to just “phasing down” coal. They argued that wealthy countries had the opportunity to utilize coal and reap the economic benefits, accelerating climate change, while developing countries must face the consequences of their actions. Removing coal entirely would hinder their economic growth even more, increasing the gap between first and third-world nations. Major debate over the ambiguity of words took place in Glasgow this weekend.
Questions:
Do you think it’s fair that developing countries have to sacrifice economic gains due to the rampant usage of coal by first-world countries?
With the addition of coal in the agreement for the first time, do you think future agreements will take ambitious steps similar to this year’s COP26?
How can the UN better enforce fossil fuel regulations as promises have a history of being broken in the past?
Should wealthier countries be forced to donate large sums of money to vulnerable countries that are suffering from the effects of climate change?
Do you think a semblance of balance will be achieved between prioritizing both economy and the environment? How can nations better work towards such a difficult goal?
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59280241
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-glasgow-climate-agreement.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/14/china-india-will-have-to-explain-themselves-on-coal-cop26-president.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-11-11/the-latest-chair-of-climate-summit-wants-talks-in-high-gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa9qoGdJmHI
8 comments:
Personally I think that we need to reduce use of all fossil fuels, and just because some countries benefitted from fossil fuels doesn’t justify other countries using them more now that we know the consequences. We should transition all countries to green energy as soon as we can and we must figure out other ways to propel struggling economies forward. Burning fossil fuels won’t help developing countries. It will hurt them. A lot of their economy in many developing countries is based on agriculture, which is harmed by climate change.
I think it is rather absurd to not do anything about coals' effect on climate change just because other countries aren't. This quite literally would mean that no country ever did anything about climate change considering it is rather unlikely all countries would together enact regulations. With that being said what is happening right now in Glasgow is very important to the future of our world. Sure, there are a lot of promises up in the air, but even if some of those promises are kept, our global temperature will still decrease. Also for regulations, it is up to the countries themselves, but here in Glasgow like in any other negotiation in the UN there is some sort of mutual respect between countries to at least attempt to keep their promises.
In response to Thomas' comment, I think it's definitely important to prioritize the reduction of fossil fuels, particularly coal, because of the irreversible damage that they have the potential of causing. However, one thing to note is that countries like India and other developing third world countries rely on coal to develop their economy. With the absence of such a large fuel of income, they may end up increasing poverty, malnutrition/hunger, and various other human rights issues. Especially because these issues are so prevalent right now, if jobs are lost as companies lose a large source of their income, then lives will be lost and impacted severely. For this reason, I think we should mandate that more money goes to these developing countries on behalf of the US and other developed countries in order to compensate for the heavy losses that fragile economies will face when the removal of coal. Prioritizing both climate change and the preservation of economic health for weaker nations is key and a difficult combination to balance. It'll be interesting to see how promises from the Glasgow conference are kept going forward.
I think one way to better enforce fossil fuel regulations is to have more frequent assessments of countries' progress towards meeting their goals. Right now, countries seem to be required to self-assess themselves every five years. However, if the UN made this an annual requirement, I think that would be a lot better so that countries are constantly being reminded of their climate goals. The UN can also help out by maybe sending representatives and researchers to help with the assessments. Even less detailed annual assessments with a heavily detailed assessment every five years could be really beneficial.
In terms of whether nations will be able to work together to reduce fossil fuels and be more environmentally friendly or not, I think collaboration is key. Sharing discoveries and ideas will be vital. Perhaps in their climate goal self-assessments, countries can include ways that they’ve been decreasing their carbon footprint and how they plan to do so in the future so that countries can find inspiration from each other. It’s going to take a lot of commitment and accountability, but it can be easier to stay accountable when you’re working with others.
Research link: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements
I agree with Thomas that we must reduce all uses of fossil fuels whenever possible. The key is to find out when such a thing is possible without dire consequences. There will be consequences no matter what because our society is so reliant on fossil fuels as a whole whether that be coal power plants or using fuel for transportation. Climate change is a very pressing issue that affects everybody as seen by the forest fires within California or the increase in extreme weather around the world. The debate between who should reduce the most fossil fuel use (developing or wealthy countries) is a big one. Eventually, everybody will have to reduce but at the moment it may not be optimal for certain countries, mainly developing ones, to reduce their carbon footprint. I totally agree with Anusha’s comment that certain countries like India need coal right now to deal with other pressing matters.
Future agreements will probably take similar ambiguous steps since there are always countries, especially powerful and wealthy ones, that have an agenda they want to fulfill. They are not gonna say yes to many specific reductions that will harm their eco in drastic ways. Depending on the president, the US may or may not be in favor of certain reductions. A Republican party president probably will not agree to many reductions while a Democrat would agree to more.
It’s hard to regulate fossil fuel reductions because the UN doesn’t have too much leverage. They can try to punish certain countries if they don’t live up to promises. This can mean using countries that support reductions to either block trade or do something that will make an effect on certain countries that break their promises. Of course, this is much harder to implement than it seems as there are many factors like the economy of the other countries, etc.
I do think that carbon dioxide emissions must be decreased, but the problem lies within the alternative of coal. Currently, if coal production is rapidly phased out, there is nothing that can replace it.
For example, some estimates have the US holding enough coal that has already been mined to fuel current resources for the next 400 years. Coal provides 56% of the electricity used in the nation each day. For fossil fuel-reliant states, coal provides 95% of Kentucky's electricity. Electrical rates in Kentucky are the second lowest in the nation — because of coal. West Virginia, also, generates 96% of its electricity from coal.
If developed or developing countries were to phase out fossil fuels, they would be forced to turn to unstable OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. I think a better resolution would be to phase down fossil fuels, give subsidies for green tech, and invest more in renewable energy to maintain a stable market and decrease global warming, while avoiding economic collapse.
Climate change is a global problem thus I do think that all nations should be taking steps to decrease their carbon dioxide emissions. However, I know many nations that rely on manufacturing and oil such as the UAE, Mexico, China, and more, would encounter severe economic problems if coal was completely eliminated. As a result, I think there should be strict regulation on coal production but it shouldn't be completely eliminated. I think future climate agreements and proposals will be just as ambitious because Climate Change is not going to diminish and if anything it will progressively get worse. Additionally, I think countries ought to cooperate and reach a consensus to make sure every nation is doing their part in helping combat Climate Change. Additionally, if nations monitor their carbon footprint on an annual basis rather than a 5 year basis, they will be more conscience of pollution and help them reach their environmental goals. I do think wealthier countries should help vulnerable countries combat climate change but I don't know if donating money is the right approach, instead they can help develop infrastructural projects or welcome refugees.
In agreement with the statements above, I agree that maintaining strict Covid-19 regulations is critical to ensuring that lives are saved and that we are taking steps to be as safe as possible. I think it is absurd that these groups are unwilling to comply with the government policy not only because these implementations are meant to not only protect others but also themselves. Additionally, it perplexes me that people feel their rights are violated, as these mandates do not even force vaccinations as one can opt for a weekly covid test. Tests like these are quick and simple swabs, which clearly have no risks to an individual. As for exceptions to the vaccine, I think that the law should not include easier methods of exemptions, but harder ones. In more recent news, we have seen the rise of the new Omicron variant leaving more questions as to its ability to spread and its long term effects on humans. That said, maximizing safety precautions through initiatives like vaccinating as many people as possible has become even more critical. In addition, considering the arguments of businesses who claim Covid regulations hurt businesses, this argument only thinks short term. Mandates including reduced maximum occupancy won’t be going away any time soon until the virus is well under control. Therefore, businesses need to realize that cooperation will, in the long term, benefit their businesses by allowing us to (eventually) return to pre-covid regulations, and more importantly, save lives. As for unemployment benefits, I do not think that those fired due to noncompliance to covid-regulations should receive full unemployment benefits. I agree with Sakshi that these unemployment benefits for those who refuse to comply should be reduced to the point where working is more beneficial financially. By incentivising these people back into the work field, they’ll be able to have more financial support, businesses will be able to retain their workforce, and the pandemic will be able to be monitored more carefully (since noncompliant, fired employees would likely not take precautions if not in the workforce).
Post a Comment