"By most assessments, the Kyoto Protocol has been a failure. Emissions have risen substantially over the past five years even in parties to the Protocol and in many EU countries expressing great commitment to reducing their own emissions. Four of the world’s top five emitters (the U.S., China, India and Russia) are not included in the treaty, have not ratified it, or are not subject to substantial limitations. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol attempted to establish a system of monetized assets (emissions quotas) and distribute them across countries without any ability to enforce the rules. "
or to draw our attention to the 45,000 individuals who gathered in Copenhagen,
"The Copenhagen Accord certainly does not manifest earlier hopes that this meeting would see a grand agreement covering emissions commitments for 2020 by the major emitting economies. It does not set a goal for global emissions reductions by the year 2050. It does not give details on international carbon market mechanisms, such as much-needed reform for the Clean Development Mechanism, beyond 2012. It is completely vague on technology transfer. It does not specify procedures for reducing deforestation in tropical countries. Finally, it does not even set out a timeline for concluding a larger treaty. Some of these areas were by most accounts close to consensus even before the Copenhagen conference began, so the lack of language on these initiatives could be seen as a step backward. Moreover, the “Accord” does not even represent a consensus document for the many countries gathered here; rather, it was assembled on the last day of the conference when the heads of state of the U.S., China, Brazil, India and a few others realized that the conference delegates had not made enough progress to conclude a larger deal. The other 185 or so country delegations merely conducted a cursory vote acknowledging this much narrower agreement."
I can hardly believe that all the energy expended in getting all those people to the conference will be balanced by the results, in fact the only product is see is a little economic boost for Denmark. Why continue these useless conferences, which include gatherings before our time i.e:1972 Stockholm Conference,1992 Rio Conference, 1987 Montreal Protocol. The international community needs to find a new method if they want to achieve anything, to be honest i don't see anything getting done anytime soon. We'll hit an analogous disaster the size of our "great recession" were pulling ourselves out of and decide its time to get down to business.
45,000 people produced three pages in Copenhagen. Does anybody see any positives in these Conferences? Has there been results I've over looked? Or am i totally correct in assuming that the Climate Change community simply doesn't have anything together??? The forces their going up against are too strong to be dealt with at the current level.
It's true, the international community's attempts to address the issue of global warming have been laughably ineffective, and in the absence of any adequate international emissions reduction treaty, we are left with a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. If countries A commit to reducing emissions on their own, countries B that don't commit to reductions will be able to produce goods/services more cheaply. Production will shift from countries A to countries B, with countries B also replacing the greenhouse gas emissions that countries A cut in the process. It is therefore irrational for countries A to unilaterally cut emissions, as A's acts of altruism will hurt A relative to countries B and ultimately be undermined by the behavior of B. With this thought in mind, I feel that, barring some breakthrough in emissions reductions technology, or an unexpected positive development in international climate-change negotiations, there is one way to adequately address the problem of global warming. All the countries willing to commit to emissions cuts need to band together and collectively enact tariffs against uncooperative countries. This plan, of course, requires the cooperation of a large enough group of countries, and would require a substantial level of political willpower and determination, but I feel that if it were carried out properly, it would be very likely to bring success.
ReplyDeletewhile I agree with everything that is being said, I'm not sure even that will be effective. With the population growing by about 1.17% (2008) every year, longer life expectancies only making it worse, the problem is going to start compounding with the population. For 6.something billion people(a large percent of which have limited access to resources) to all live with zero to minimal impact on the world is basically impossible.
ReplyDeleteAs more people are living, there will be more demand for production, and as Rich said, the first person to stop or lower production for the masses will be the loser.
I'm not saying we should give up by any means, just that I'll be all the more impressed if it happens.
On the bright side, we're very adaptable? well.. I tried.
A.
It takes energy and cooperation to get people to meet about environmental issues. Although these conferences have not been 100% successful, it does not mean they have been useless. 50 years ago, no one had even heard of climate change. At least now we are aware that there are lots of environmental problems and are trying to come up with ways to manage and control them. Even with all the evidence, people deny that the environment is in any danger and what's even more depressing is that some people just don't care. Those 45,000 representatives care about the earth and are trying to save it, which is pretty damn admirable. Let's see you try to cooperate with 48,999 other people (most of them unable to speak the same language as you) and see what solutions you have for the scariest, most significant issues pertaining to the survival of the human race.
ReplyDeleteThe unfortunate thing is that biophilia is not enough to inspire countries to cut back on emissions. People are not innately responsible for the environment; the desire for advancement and personal gain has a tendency to override the seemingly vague, distant issue of global warming. Especially when the countries that don't agree to cut emissions have a much greater advantage economically than those who do. I agree with Ryan that, at least in theory, all of the countries that support emission banding together and putting tariffs on goods from countries that haven't agreed to cut emissions would give strong economic reasons for the other countries to cut emissions. However, considering that two of the countries that aren’t in the agreement are the U.S. and China, this plan could end very badly. Especially considering the power of the current Chinese economy.
ReplyDeleteby Rich I meant Ryan. Wow.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Christine that the fact that one of the most uncooperative countries on climate is China would pose a serious obstacle to the plan that I put forward. In particular, I see the fact that the Chinese government holds so much of U.S debt as potentially providing China with the leverage to keep the U.S from applying any sort of carbon-tariffs. However, I feel that the general perception(in my opinion justified) that China is by far the primary beneficiary of trade with the U.S and other developed nations, combined with a widespread notion amongst U.S citizens that jobs are being lost to China, make the prospect of U.S tariffs against Chinese goods a very real possibility to Chinese policymakers. And considering how thoroughly reliant China remains on exports, I feel that Chinese policymakers would go to great lengths to avoid any large trade dispute with its main trading partner.
ReplyDelete