Post 3: Global Warming
The international community is focused on Denmark this week as world leaders discuss and debate how to limit the impact of global warming.
What do you see as the most important barrier to significantly limiting greenhouse emissions internationally? What do you see as the most important barrier to significantly limiting greenhouse emissions domestically? What should President Obama be pushing for in Copenhagen? (Your answer can be idealistic &/or realistic in nature.) How should he address the dialectic relationship between the environment and the economy (especially within the context of this economic recession)?
Due by Tuesday, December 22 by 7pm.
posted by M. Aby @ 1:34 PM
46 Comments:
I think that the major barrier to reducing climate change internationally is economics. Many of those in power don’t necessarily think they woill profit fo a major reduction and the necessary steps that would entail. It will also cost an enormous amount of up front capital because to really make the transition we will have to drastically change how our system works. One of the major issues is that large states are going to need to help fund smaller states. Large states have grown rich off of fossil fuels and now smaller states are asking for billions of dollars to help them turn to renewable energy sources. (1) I think a large issue that faces American efforts to reduce climate change is the fact that they are consistently waiting for other countries to take some kind of action first. They didn’t ratify Kyoto, because other big countries didn’t do enough. I think this is absolutely idiotic. Its like a chicken and egg game, neither one will go until the other one does. Luckily, Obama has said that he wants the United States to be a leader in the global climate issue, we will see if this is more than empty verbiage. (2) I think what Obama needs to push is a massive reduction in our own climate emissions as well as funding for poorer countries. Although the United States is committing more than a third of the emissions that are causing climate change, smaller countres like sudan and brazil are hurting the worst from it. I think it is unfortunate that there is a recession right now because this is something that will be cheaper in the long run, but it is hard to start up. On the other hand, I think the same way that we got out of the depression of the 30s by spending a lot of money on the military, we can do a similar thing now by spending a lot on energy efficiency. (3)
http://www.good.is/post/cop15-the-issues/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_nations_framework_convention_on_climate_change/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climate-change-carbon-emissions
The most important barrier to significantly limiting greenhouse emissions internationally I would say is countries actually coming together and agreeing to do something about the problem at hand. Rich and poor countries need to agree with each other, and it seems like a hard thing to do because more developed countries want different things to be done than the less developed countries. “In fact, there was almost no deal in Copenhagen at all. The contentious talks appeared to break down at several points over recent days, with rich and poor countries at odds over nearly every issue” (1). Developing a global pact will be hard with such controversy between nations on what they think should happen. "A weary Mr. Obama concluded before leaving Copenhagen. “It’s going to be hard within countries. It’s going to be even harder between countries” (5). Even Obama acknowledged that so many countries coming together to fight the problem is going to be tough. “China has said it will not unduly sacrifice economic growth or sovereignty to help solve a problem that the West has contributed to for centuries” (3). The less developed countries don't want to cut their emissions when the more developed countries have been wasting resources for a much longer time. They don't see it as fair. They did come to an agreement “which provided for monitoring emissions cuts in individual countries but set no overall global target for cutting greenhouse gases and no deadline for reaching a formal international treaty” (2). The differing countries just can't seem to come together and agree on anything specific except the fact something needs to be done about global warming. There needs to be an established mechanism that makes sure every country is following through with the agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The most important barrier to limiting greenhouse emissions domestically would be getting the legislative branch to pass bills that are actually going to do something significant about global warming in the United States. We need to start setting some strict standards and goals for the upcoming years in order to be a leader in global warming like Obama says he wants to be. “In order to deliver on his promises to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and provide a chunk of that $100 billion in aid, Mr. Obama must persuade the Senate to approve a cap-and-trade bill — a huge task” (4). There will be much debate back here in the United States about whether we as a country are going to fund this and how we are going to fund it.
President Obama should be pushing for nations to come together and agree. I think he did a good job of helping to get China involved. But he should continue now after the Copenhagen conference in being a leader in the global climate issue. Also pushing for a contract that is more binding in the future on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obama should address the dialectic relationship between the environment and the economy by emphasizing how important it is to take action now. The longer the country waits to start recognizing global warming the harder it is going to be to fix it. ““Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with,” The Economist recently declared. If global catastrophe is indeed looming, all countries benefit from avoiding it — but are also powerfully tempted to let others pay for preventing it” (5). Right now Obama should be pressing for a plan so we know how we are going to tackle the problem. “The American people should be pleased with this for four reasons: jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs,” Ms. Pelosi said during a break from her advocacy in Copenhagen on climate change, the issue she calls her signature one. “We are about investing in science to create the new technology and have a new green revolution, so that we can create a new economy” (5). With the economy down this could help to create jobs, which would be a good thing considering the economy. Obama should emphasize this as he pushes for the bill to pass in the Senate. People want more job opportunities to open up and this could help to create jobs. Considering our current economic state as a country, this would be a good thing for our country.
1- The Washington Post “Climate Deal Falls Short of Key Goals”
2- The Washington Post “Climate Talks End Without Real Agreement”
3- The Washington Post “5 Questions about the Copenhagen Climate Talks”
4- The New York Times “Copenhagen and Beyond” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=1
5- The New York Times “Obama's Ambitious Agenda Carries a Few Bruises”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21caucus.html?ref=us
The topic of greenhouse emissions and global warming has been disputed over and over with different opinions battling constantly about what is deemed necessary to change. There are many instances where this fight has taken violent ends, such as with protesters, where hundreds were detained in Denmark (1). At times, it seems that no agreement can be reached over this issue, but I disagree. With proper cooperation and means of change, the issue of greenhouse emissions being discussed in Copenhagen can be helped considerably.
There are many barriers that slow the reduction of emissions. Though some news sources say it’s only due to certain cultures and countries like China (who accounts for a one percent majority of emissions over the United States), the real reason that true change is lagging is due to a world attitude about climate change. The only way that any change will result is for every nation of the world to actually take it seriously. If only one or two countries support actual change, no matter how grand, the end result will not be significant enough to truly make a difference. For example, if the United States drastically reduces their emissions, it will help set an example, but until other nations such as China and even small countries that are developing reduce their emissions as well, no lasting change results. Economics plays an important role in this barrier. For example, the United States has far more capital to invest in reducing their carbon footprint than a small country like Guinea. It is a responsibility of larger, wealthier countries to give aid to other economies in order to help reduce emissions and develop more earth-friendly methods of energy. The entire world has a policy of waiting until bad things happen in order to solve them. It is crucial that we do not take global warming and climate change as a passing event and simply wait for further destruction. If some large influential countries attempt to help others and set an example, then less developed and needy countries might follow suit. However, without capital invested in them, there is no guarantee that any lasting change will result. As for countries such as China that attempt to refute all ideas presented, it is imperative that they also understand the risks that are being bestowed upon them if no action is taken. This global perspective on the issue is difficult, but if previous notions of appropriate actions are abolished, there is a chance that countries will work harder to push cleaner energy and sustainable policies. Other factors such as gas taxes have been useful in reducing emissions in countries such as England and France, and even in the U.S. (4).
Domestically, the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions becomes slightly easier to tackle. In the United States, economics once again becomes a major player in all policy. Some states naturally have more money than others. Efficient energy and clean energy costs money. Money has to come from somewhere. These facts are essentially the reason why not all areas of the United States are particularly energy efficient. For example, in California in 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into action a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (3). Schwarzenegger said that he “…wanted California [to be] number one in the fight against global warming” (3). Since then, California has encouraged some of the cleanest and most workable solutions to climate change of anywhere in the United States. However, an issue has presented itself. Solar panels, which are being widely used in California for energy, are very expensive. Many residents of poorer areas where emissions are greatest
are not able to purchase the panels and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the panels as a whole. Therefore, more capital must be dispersed amongst people in those neighborhoods in order to reach long-term goals. This issue extends to other states as well, especially Appalachian states with poorer economies. They simply don’t have the money to afford expensive changes in energy production.
In Copenhagen, President Obama will be forced to make many tough decisions. He must decide first and foremost how involved the United States will be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to what extent the American people should be involved in assisting other countries. I personally believe that the United States should put these environmental issues on the forefront of our collective conscience and act decisively. Obama should push for greater reform in the U.S., and not simply request it, but demand it, without worrying about its initial popularity. The United States cannot afford to be half-minded about greenhouse gasses. Obama must also be willing to help spend a specified amount of capital on other countries to help spur gas reducing policies and actions. With the reduction of money spent on foreign wars such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. would have more funds that could be allocated for changing our own domestic policy and providing money for those who need it in order to change their environmental actions.
The relationship between the environment and the economy is harmonious. You don’t need to destroy the planet you live on in order to make a living and create a thrifty and healthy economy. In the short run, environmental policy and costs seem like a hindrance to the suffering United States economy, but as time goes on, the countries that will become more affluent will be the countries that held to their environmental policy and actually made a change. Nations must be able to change with the times, and now is exactly a case in point. The United States must have sustainable and clean energy in order to survive. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world such as Britain, France, and other European giants have shown the effects of well-managed environmental policy. Strongly regulated environmental policy can assist with jobs in a floundering economy as well. More environmental work can create more jobs in outdoor industries and in environmental planning companies. The economy will not remain stable if the environment is ignored, and that is essential to realize. Hopefully these issues will be addressed in the Copenhagen conferences.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/12/copenhagen.protests/index.html
2) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579071,00.html
3) http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/4111/
4) http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html
Climate has been a hot issue over the past few years. It is one that is always talked about but rarely is action taken. Finally, world leaders came together in late 2009 to discuss cutting emissions on a worldwide scale. Representatives from large countries to small participated in the debate in Copenhagen. After the convention, a few regulations were presented and passed, but much was left to question. Some feel it accomplished more than what was thought, some fell it didn’t accomplish anything (3). Countries had trouble agreeing on the strength of regulation and whether to have them at all. I think the biggest obstacle world leaders have in this issue is taking initiative. The only way regulation of emissions would really work is if the whole world just took initiative and did it. The problem is, no one country wants to cut their emissions by themselves, especially if they are a large country. If the United States just cut emissions domestically, then businesses will just move outside the country where they can do business for a lower cost. This is a problem in Europe industry right now. Many domestic industries are looking to foreign borders where limitations aren’t as strict (1). In order for other nations to follow, it is important for a large country like the U.S. and China to take the first steps on climate reform. Unfortunately, both nations were slightly held back in negotiations. Some leaders such as Brazil’s president Inacio criticized the United States for failing to commit to a concrete plan (2). This brings up another barrier to the problem. Larger more powerful nations are more reluctant to submit to international regulation. China is an example of this because they know that reductions in emissions could hurt their very large economy.
International barriers also carry over domestically. We live in an international market. If restrictions are put up against emissions, businesses will just move somewhere where there are no restrictions. The issue of emissions is an issue that should be decided on an international level in order to gain any ground. There are things, however, that the government can do for the environment at home. Investing in new technology is a prime example. Giving more money to foundations that help develop cleaner energy is a step forward. By diverting more of our national budget towards the environment, Obama can send a message to the world. If he truly wants to make the environment a priority, he needs to show the world he’s willing to do it on a domestic stage. If he and the United States take a great initiative, the world will follow. The problem with this is, the environment is not the most eminent priority in this country. Increased spending on the environment takes away from healthcare and the troubled economy. This issue will take many years to find solutions and it will be interesting to see if they world can unite to solve it.
1. New York Times- An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/world/europe/21scene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=earth
2. Washington Post- Brazil’s Silva criticizes US stance in Copenhagen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122101450.html
3. Washington Post- Was Copenhagen a Success?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121901428.html
I watched a documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that I would recommend to everyone. It’s really good and interesting. For those of you who don't know, the electric car is not an impossibility at all. In fact, the first electric car was made at relatively the same time that the first gas automobile was made (at that time it was more plausible to go with the gas option, though). Just recently, however, electric cars were made that were very advanced and just as useful and efficient as gas cars. They were never produced at a high rate due to poor advertisement and unwilling car companies (and in my opinion, oil companies got in the way). It is possible that the electric car be mass produced, although it would take a lot of work. Basically, I think a huge step forward would be to start re-introducing electric cars in America like they tried but this time not like politics get in the way. It will take better advertisement, more support, and making sure the oil companies don’t get their hand in the mix.(1) I think that this is one of the biggest barriers both domestically and internationally, but more so domestically. This is one thing I would really like to see Obama talk about at Copenhagen. I would like him to speak up and talk about how this is a legitimate possibility and course of action. If the world decided to start mass producing electric cars, once they were tested and what not, we could significantly cut into the amount of damage we make. What bothers me so much about this situation is that the solutions are right in front of us. I think that the oil companies have so much power and leverage with America because of our dependency that we are too afraid to take action.
One of the ways that we can lower emissions internationally is by making a conscious effort, with incentives included (both negative ones as well as positive ones), to move toward using no carbon and low carbon fuels. From there, we work towards eliminating fuels from as many aspects of life as possible. Also, by “enhancing the growth of terrestrial biomass (eg. forests) or biomass in the oceans” we can cut into CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are many things that can be done together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, another gas that is lethal to our environment, is produced when coal mining. One way of making use of this gas is to capture it before it gets into the atmosphere and then use it for heat and energy.(2) I think the biggest barrier that stands in our way of moving towards these options is the fact that global warming is a slow process that is hard for us to see. It doesn’t pose as big of a threat to people because we don’t believe it’ll affect us – we see it only as affecting those that come after us.
1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39K36Rw7LYc&feature=related
2- http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/emissions.html
I think that the major thing to do to rid of global warming is to decrease the amount of carbon emissions and find an alternate source of energy. In the copenhagen talks going on right now they are talking about what larger, wealthier countries can do to help developing countries reduce their emissions. Most large countries like the United States and China have gotten rich off of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. It is kind of our duty to help more developing countries. This is a big problem because we need to fund the smaller countries (2). I think President Obama should be pushing for finding an alternative energy source faster and making it a main priority even though the economy can't exactly afford much of anything right now. Although with the economy back on the slow rise there is a major problem with carbon emissions becoming a larger influence on global warming(1). Since the United States did not participate in the Kyoto Agreement I feel it is our duty to lead the Copenhagen climate talks and help other countries to join in.
1. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/climate-talks-out-in-with-the-home-show/
2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/no-formal-deal-in-copenhagen-leaders-say/
Climate change has been the most frustrating international debate the world has ever known. I was hopeful when I learned the Copenhagen talks were going to take place, but recently I have become very discouraged with the world’s leaders and their inability to come to an agreement on the climate crisis. With different economic interests, backgrounds, views, and cultures, it is very difficult to come to a general consensus on anything, especially issues that involve contributions of money (1).
Clearly, the strongest barrier up against the climate change dispute is the global economy. Nations want to promote their own economies, and won’t agree to anything that would potentially hinder their infrastructures. Developing nations in particular, such as China and India, are reluctant to contribute money to the cause until industrialized nations supposedly “do their parts too” (1). The US, for example, with its current economic state, is unwilling to contribute as much money as it would have liked. This has been leading to finger-pointing, blaming each other, stalling the talks, and overall behaving like ridiculous children. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is urging developing and industrialized nations to do more for the planet, and stop arguing. He told reporters that "Nature does not negotiate with us...We have a chance -- a real chance, here and now -- to change the course of our history…This is a time to stop pointing fingers.” (2).
We are slowly beginning to try to adopt policies that will reduce carbon emissions in this country as well. But there have been stalls and problems holding it up. Congress is fighting over legislation on climate change. The House passed a bill this past summer outlining a cap-and-trade system that could lead to an early end to conventional use of coal and oil over the next few decades (3). But between strong opposition from Republicans and the overwhelming distractions of health care reform and the economy, the legislation has stalled in the Senate (3).
President Obama should be pushing for the industrialized nations (ex: The United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, etc.) to agree to contribute more funds to the legislation being drafted. Since the US did not participate in the Kyoto Agreement, I feel that we should be one of the main leaders working on climate legislation. Though the industrialized nations would be contributing more money than the developing nations, this is justified in my eyes because the industrialized nations are the ones who have caused most of the emissions. They represent only 15% of the world’s population, but they consume more than 68% of the world’s energy (4). The developing nations should contribute the second biggest amount of funds, while third world countries should be expected to contribute the least. This is currently being considered by the representatives in Copenhagen. The problem with this is how much the developing nations should contribute. China and India, for example, point fingers at the industrialized nations as the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. Yet they can not get out of their share of the blame completely. "Nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world," Hillary Clinton wrote in an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune. "Without their participation and commitment, a solution is impossible." (2).
Regardless of whether you believe global warming is real or not, these talks are necessary. It’s important to draft legislation that will help the Earth. Even if climate change is all a hoax like some claim, shouldn’t we be embarking on this journey anyway, to help the planet? This is history in the making. If the world’s leaders can stop their bickering and really try to accomplish something, we could solve the climate change crisis. Hopefully something will be agreed upon in Copenhagen.
My sources:
1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8417541.stm
2)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/15/clinton.climate.copenhagen/index.html
3)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#
4)
http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/world-energy-consumption-the-good-bad-and-btus.html
The recent global warming conference in Copenhagen, Denmark yielded nothing but an unenforceable list of goals that attempt to describe how to world should deal with the issue of global warming (1). I believe that there are two equally significant obstacles to creating the formal, binding, international agreement that we need: money and power. In order to create a successful program to reduce emissions, wealthier, developed nations, such as the United States will need to provide aid to developing countries (2). Currently, many these developing countries do not have the pecuniary or technological resources to create a massive climate reduction program. Their economies are based on cheap labor sources and finished products, with little or no regard to the environment. For example, part of the Copenhagen Accord is the idea that wealthier nations will pay the poorer nations to protect their forests because research shows that cutting down trees accounts for at least 20 percent of all global, carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps, this idea would have been successful if the accords were binding and included specific amounts from each country. Expert studies suggest that the developing nations will need much more than offered to pay for their switches to cleaner energy (3). Ian Fry of Tuvalu, an island nation that is “drowning” from rising sea levels compared his acceptance of the accord to "being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future” (2). This shows the disgust of unindustrialized nations. If they are not able to work with the money provided, ultimately the ideas put forth at the accords will be unsuccessful.
Secondly, another critical impediment to a clear solution was the desire to maintain power. The Copenhagen Accord was primarily brokered by President Obama, with the consideration and input of four other wealthy nations: China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Collectively, they left all of the other 187 countries in the world out of the final negotiations (2). How is a global agreement supposed to work if all countries were not involved in its creation? Because the acceptance of the agreement came down to the conference’s final hours, I assume that there was not ample time for discussion and consideration of all viewpoints. This left many poorer nations and their delegates, especially those from Africa feeling angered and betrayed. Jonathon Porritt, the former chairman of the British Government’s Sustainable Development Commission, said, “What we have actually seen over the last two weeks is raw industrial power at its worst, both on the part of China and the US and other countries. They have not given an inch in terms of understanding the needs of some of the poorer countries” (4). Simply, this is due to the fact that powerful nations and their leaders, such as the United States and President Obama, want to be the “superstars” of the conference and receive all of the desired media attention.
On the contrary, President Obama should have pushed for a binding agreement with specific stipulations in regards to emission levels and aid to developing nations. I believe that the Copenhagen agreement, as written, will ultimatley be unsuccessful. Countries will default on their financial promises when their respecitve economies hits low-points or, simply, if they want to invest in other domestic issues. If this occurs, there is absolutely nothing that the global community will be able to do. Furthermore, the Copenhagen agreement lacks specific goals for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, only the provision to try to prevent the world temperature from increasing by two more degrees (5). This temperature goal seems extremley difficult to do without specific, scientific stipulations for how this should be accomplished. Countries can say that they are trying, but, currently, there is no minimum to how much they should try.
Idealistically, we should put more our money and research toward finding more cost effective, environmentally friendly ways to first reduce and then reverse climate change. I believe that doing this will benefit our economy since we are coming out of a recession. Researching energy efficient technologies and the public buying these products will only help the economy to become stronger. This is especially true given that new and improved energy efficient technology covers many different sectors of the economy, ranging from home appliances to home building materials. A jump in purchases will help all of these struggling areas to recover, not just one. In turn, I believe that this will slowly help the country’s entire economic system.
1: A Grudging Accord in Copenhagen
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20accord.html
2: Copenhagen: A lesson in geopolitics
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009122064859919604.html
3: Key issues at Copenhagen climate talks
http://www.startribune.com/science/79420477.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
4: 'Lukewarm' climate change deal in Copenhagen
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6962533.ece
5: Clearly the accord is not enough, but at least it's a start
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/clearly-the-accord-is-not-enough-but-at-least-its-a-start-20091220-l7jg.html
Global climate change has become an important topic of discussion in the past couple of years. Recently there was a global conference hosting around 200 nations in Copenhagen to discuss what is to be done. (3) “The clock has ticked down to zero, after two years of negotiation the time has come to deliver,” said climate chief Yvo de Boer. (3) I think that he is right, and that the world does need to take a moment to decide what is to be done. I think it has gotten to a very serious point, especially considering that some scientists believe that there is a 90% chance that food production will decline if the temperature keeps going up (1). It is also concerning because some say that although humans can live in a wide range of temperatures, the world is on its way to becoming unable to support the current population. (1) This is very concerning to me, and I think that this conference is a very good way to accomplish some things that will at least slow the process of the ozone layer depletion.
I think one of the largest barriers to limiting greenhouse gases internationally is getting all countries to participate in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Although the United States does produce 1/5 of the gases, that still means that 4/5’s of it is being produced by other countries (3). Other countries need to significantly cut back, but because a lot of them are third world, or have other issues to deal with, nothing much is getting accomplished. The United States has made pledges to cut down carbon emissions by 17% on 2005 levels by 2010, and China has also committed to a 40-45% decrease in carbon intensity levels by 2020 (2). I think this will help, however I think that it is places like Africa that need to be worried about. According to an article in The Guardian, the least developed countries will be hit the hardest in the attempt to keep the global temperature from rising (1). The only real way from stopping global warming is global participation.
I think domestically the largest barrier is the timing and the issue of money. It seems as though the Obama administration is focusing on other topics such as healthcare reform and other issues, but as George Monbiot from the Guardian says, “We can live without a new trade agreement; we can’t live without a new climate agreement” (1). I think this is true, and that carbon emissions need to be cut down, and quickly. I think the monetary issue is a big deal as well. With the recent economic recession, and people’s unwillingness to spend on something that isn’t a “right now” issue, its hard to find money for this project.
In Copenhagen I think it would be smart for Obama to push for the larger countries to help the smaller countries. As much as we wouldn’t necessarily like to spend money on reducing greenhouse gasses, I think that because we are capable of doing it, we really should. I think a huge help would to be to get third world countries that are on the edge of becoming modernized set up with environmentally friendly options instead of burning coal or doing other things that hurt the environment. A lot of countries that are on the edge of modernization are developing technology a lot like our original technology. I think it would be very smart for nations like the U.S. and Europe to donate or help jump start third world nations by giving them environmentally safe options we have already developed.
I think it is very hard for Obama to know what to do with our money at this time. I definitely think that more of it should go towards helping the state of the world in lessening global warming, but I realize it is difficult with this economy. An option that would perhaps work could be making global warming a worldly issue, somewhat like they have done with AIDS awareness in the past. I know there has already been an upswing of environmentally charged events, but I also think that it could work even more if it keeps happening. For example the S.O.S. concert raised money for global warming, and these days more and more environmentally friendly options are popping up all over the place. I think if this continues and spreads worldwide it could have a huge impact on funding the reduction of greenhouse gasses. It could also make it so Obama could focus on other pressing topics in the United States.
1) “If you want to know who’s to blame for Copenhagen, look to the U.S. Senate” The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests
2) “Key global climate talks begin in Copenhagen” CNN.com http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/06/copenhagen.climate.talks/index.html
3) “Climate Talks Open With Calls for Urgent Action” The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
The international summit in Copenhagen has once again pushed climate change to the forefront of world news. Although many nations have been able to put aside differences to focus on the environment, this has been an obstacle (4). President Obama and the other US diplomats need to be able to convince other nations that the US will commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (1). After the failure of the US to sign the Kyoto Agreement, many nations distrust the words of an American president (1). China, a nation ever-growing in size and power is also a major struggle to compromise with (2). The Chinese leaders feel that forced standards for emissions impede upon their nation’s sovereignty (1). If they are able to pass legislation at Copenhagen, the United Nations will have to devise an authoritative method of enforcing the guidelines established (2). I don’t feel that this is going overboard; limiting sovereignty- because nations still have the power to control how emissions are reduced, and they still have the choice on whether to comply or face the repercussions. There will also be difficulties in enacting such legislation domestically, as Obama needs congressional funding (1). I feel that Obama can appeal to the media and the general populace successfully in this case, as climate change and “going green” grow in popularity.
Obama should push for the passage of an act that will require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and this should include ways for developing nations to receive technological and financial aid (3). As developing nations industrialize, it would be a grave mistake to have them follow the path of the United States, in emitting enormous amounts of pollution as the nation’s GDP grows. This won’t be easy, as the leaders of rich nations need to appeal to the leaders of nations such as Iran and Israel, whom face greater obstacles in meeting emission standards (4). Setting steeper standards for pollution (and following them) will not be inexpensive, but it is a necessary investment (1). It will cost less to clean up the Earth and reduce further pollution than it will be to establish colonies on Mars once Earth becomes inhospitable. Besides, government spending is a stimulator to the economy, and following Keynesian philosophy, any increase in spending will turn around recessions (5). This is true even if the project is viewed as wasteful- which some non-tree-huggers may label environmental programs (5). Even if global warming isn’t happening (which I know some people do), it is an absolutely illogical argument to claim that pollution is beneficial. I am personally glad to see Obama making a commitment to reducing gas emissions and in helping 3rd world nations do likewise. After the previous administration, Obama certainly has a difficult road ahead in improving US foreign relations. I believe that his actions at Copenhagen will be a strong signal of the direction in which the United States is heading.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html?_r=2&hp
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8419578.stm
3. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/20091217112743719119.html
4. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930887361&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
5. AP Economics Textbook
In my opinion, the most influential barrier limiting greenhouse emissions internationally is commitment, and the follow-through of nations. The Copenhagen accord did not make any legal treaty, therefore there is nothing holding these countries to what was agreed upon. Like Obama says, “it will not be legally binding but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they're doing and there will be a sense on the part of each country that we're in this together."(1) .Although that all sounds fine and dandy, I believe the phrase “actions speak louder than words” can be applied here. Its great that these nations are coming together to limit greenhouse emissions, but they need to be fully committed to the plan, and follow through with the actions they are supposedly committed to taking.
This same barrier is limiting domestically, but more specifically, the U.S. needs to be making sure that we are doing our part, and helping other countries, and even helping American states do what they need to do to be effective. This means that Congress must pass legislation to ensure that standrads are being met. Also, the national government needs to being providing states with this issue-specific project grants as well as providing nations not as advantaged as ours with loans/ aid to hold up their end of the Copenhagen accord, although the accord is said to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years (2). Again, like internationally, domestically we need to make certain that we are actually implementing the policies we want to see enacted, and that we are committed to this fight on climate change.
That being said, Mr. Obama bears a heavy load in Copenhagen. Obama was said to have been “very conservative” at the talks this past week (3). In my opinion, this is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing. Obama needs to take a liberal stand on this issue if he wants an agreement to be reached and progress made. If he remains conservative, nothing significant is going to be accomplished, and while something is better than nothing, the world doesn’t have forever to wait around and chill while the leaders of the world try to figure out what to do. Climate changes will get the best of us if we don’t do anything now. If Obama is really the great leader that himself and so many others make him out to be, then he should step up to the plate and take a swing, even if it is an unrealistic pitch. I feel that he should be pushing for even lower global temperature averages like 1.5C rather than 2C (2) so that significant progress can be achieved quickly.
President Obama should address this climate issue in relation to the economy in a truthful, yet positive. He should be sure to mention the many jobs that would be needed and even created in order to fulfill the accord standards. Also, the recession is so bad right now, honestly, could it get that much worse? The fact that life as we know it is being altered, and maybe even being brought to an end, should give people enough want and motive to put in the extra money and such towards this global threat. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said. "The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this decision ... is an important beginning.” (4). Now that the beginning has been written, it is important that the story doesn’t die, and that the Copenhagen Accord nations, especially the US do their part.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/19/copenhagen.climate.summit.deal/index.html?iref=allsearch
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8422307.stm
(3)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/world/europe/21scene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world
(4) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/2009121972255146647.html
In my opinion, I think climate change is the most serious problem our world faces today and should be solved IMMEDIATLY! Nations need to put their differences aside and come together to solve the problem. Or at least attempt to solve the problem as best as they can. Our planet is in dire need. I am sick of politicians putting it off until later. Have they not heard about the consequences? According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, "Each year from 1998 through 2007 ranks among the top 25warmest years on record for the United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." (1) "2005 was the warmest year on record." (3) Moreover, "Scientists say that the earth could warm by an additional 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century if we fail to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil." (1) Many people read these facts and think ... so what? There are thousands of facts that reiterate the point that we need to change the ways we are living. If we do not, many people will suffer. (I.e. Hurricane Katrina) People will become homeless, world hunger will drastically grow, and many more people will live in poverty. Why not fix these sub-issues before they happen? Instead of trying to fix them in reverse.
Like Jacob said, it is like a chicken and egg game. Someone needs to take the lead. Nations need to pull their weight to accomplish fixing this issue. I am disappointed that The United States did not join the Kyoto Protocol. Back in 2001 President Bush pulled out. Saying, "Implementing it (the protocol) would gravely damage the US economy." (2) If our country were to join, the protocol could potentially make very significant leeway. The BBC states, "This has led to criticisms that the agreement is toothless, as well as being virtually obsolete without US support." (2)
We have made small steps but I think we need to make even larger ones. I like what Ben said about the influence and brief history of electric cars. These are great innovations. Although there are many more causes of greenhouse gas emissions. Probably the most significant is the pollution that many big factories emit. According to the EPA, "The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are: Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Fluorinated Gases." (4) Although we contribute to global warming by driving our cars (which emit CO2) and running our homes, I believe the biggest targets are the oblivious big companies that emit pollutants without a care. Along with using renewable energy, we NEED these companies to stop, or at least slow down the rate at which they pollute. I would like to see our government enforce laws that limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is no pressure on these large industrial companies, we are doomed.
I would like to see President Obama compromise with other world leaders to solve the problem. In addition, I would like him to educate himself on how other countries are working with the problem. Moreover, how their countries are finding innovative techniques. Thus, bringing these international ideas back to the states. I realize that it is very difficult for the world leaders to address this problem with the economic meltdown. I feel that President Obama can use renewable energy to boost the economy. But if he cannot, I would like him to address the problem of climate change as soon as he can after the recession.
Citations:
1. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269921.stm
...why did the US pull out? and How much difference will Kyoto make?
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58HSyjN6k8
...00:28 seconds.
4. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
I think the biggest obstacle in the way of limiting emissions internationally is the rift between the big, industrialized countries, and the small developing ones. The rich countries have finally realized that our planet is slowly deteriorating and greenhouse emissions need to be cut, and smaller nations who are just now gaining valuable resources are against such change because their emissions are expected to rise greatly as they grow (1). Making the necessary changes to greatly affect the world’s climate would cost these countries a lot more, which makes them a lot more unwilling to agree on a compromise. Because these countries don’t have a lot of money, they are refusing to sign any major treaty until they are promised funding that would allow them to cope with any major consequences that a warmer climate would cause (1). This could include droughts, famine, and rising seas (1). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged that the U.S would provide its share of 100 billion dollars annually to help support these poorer nations, but nothing has come of it yet (1).
Domestically, the biggest barrier is a strong sense of apathy from the American public. Yes, everyone got a little jazzed up about global warming after they saw An Inconvenient Truth, but went right back to their old ways shortly afterwards. Americans really tend to focus more on short term problems, and seeing the graphs with the polar ice caps melting in about fifty years doesn’t really concern anyone because hey, most of us will be dead by that time anyways, right (2)? Something else that affects American’s views is that the warming climate isn’t seen as a direct threat to our country. The September 11th attacks mobilized the public in an amazing way, but it was an obviously overt attack on our people. Many Americans see global warming as someone else’s problem, not something that our country has to worry about.
The main thing that Obama should be pushing for in Copenhagen is some sort of climate treaty that the U.S can sign onto, even if it doesn’t drastically reduce our emissions. I think the U.S was put in a very bad light when we didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol, and we definitely should be on board with whatever the next treaty may be. Showing that the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation is ready to be a player in climate change would send a message to the rest of the world that this is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
The best way to balance the climate and the economy is to become more independent with our energy. If our country starts focusing on efforts to become more self-reliant, we can avoid the big taxes from major oil companies and create more jobs for Americans (3). Some of the largest taxes we have to pay come from Saudi Arabians controlling Exxon-Mobil (3), and if we stopped being so reliant on these middle eastern countries for our energy then we can help pull ourselves out of the economy while positively affecting our climate as well.
(1)http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_nations_framework_convention_on_climate_change/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
(2) http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14692
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21caucus.html
The most significant barrier to reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally is that the nations around the world cannot agree on specific policies, ideas, or systems towards limiting emissions. Also, not all nations necessarily have the same level of concern towards the environment, making it difficult to agree on solutions. No country’s citizens want higher gas prices or higher energy tax bills just to help the environment-something that probably wouldn’t be directly beneficial to themselves; Americans’ concerns about global warming are diminishing as the poor economy is consuming the policy agenda, Europeans tend to not follow through with the solutions they offer (such as the Kyoto Protocol), and the Chinese and other developing nations refuse to sacrifice any of their current policies (1). With these attitudes toward global warming and limiting greenhouse gasses, it makes it difficult for the diverse nations to come together on certain solutions.
The most significant barrier domestically, in my opinion, is getting people to care enough about global warming to actually make a change in their lifestyle. Many people either don’t have the money to transfer to more efficient technology or automobiles, or simply don’t place is as a priority in their lives. With energy taxes and the cost of being more environmentally friendly on the rise, people are becoming more and more careless about solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, since the effect of leaving their lights on in their house all day or driving gas-guzzling SUVs doesn’t directly affect them, they may feel that it is not important to pay attention to the harmful effects they are enforcing.
Obama’s plans that were presented in Copenhagen are not nearly enough towards solving the emissions problems. His administration knows that the only way that there will be a significant improvement in greenhouse gas emissions is if all the major countries that are causing the emissions bind together and form a mutual solution (4). The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) explained during the Copenhagen meetings the harm of six important gasses and said that they would begin to set regulations towards limiting the emissions of those gasses. The problem is that the regulations may not pass through Congress; it remains unknown whether they will be successful or a cause a backlash (2). I think that this is just what Obama needs to do in order to limit gas emissions. Although this is probably easier said than done, Obama should begin to set strict regulations for the amount of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gasses that are sent into the environment. In addition, he must get Americans to realize the importance of following the regulations and protecting the ozone; instead of just raising energy taxes or setting certain limits on people, he would have to explain the benefits in doing these things to citizens. The relationship between economics and the environment cannot easily be settled. In order to promote a common solution to limiting greenhouse gases around the world, its going to cost money and its going to come out of ordinary citizens’ pockets. One-hundred billion dollars has already been funded for helping the undeveloped countries deal with global warming, which is a big step forward (3). However, a more realistic amount that could really make a difference is said to be about $140 billion annually (3). The only way to accomplish this goal is to keep promoting environmental health so that people actually take responsibility for their planet.
1. http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9482:all-economic-pain-no-environmental-gain&catid=57&Itemid=154
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120701645.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/energy-environment/21iht-green21.html
4. .http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/climate_emission.html
One of the major issues that is facing our world today is how to deal with climate change and the threat of global warming. I believe one of the most important barriers to limiting greenhouse gases internationally is the rate of consumption in developing and developed nations. Currently, cities are responsible for emitting 80% of all global carbon dioxide and the developing world’s cities are growing at more then three times the rate of developed nations [1]. The World Bank says that 20% of all the health problems in developing nations can be attributed to environmental factors, including pollution [1]. Many of these developing nations, such as china, are starting to follow in the footsteps of developed nations in their emissions practices [1]. I think that the hardest part about limiting emission’s internationally is that we can’t control other countries actions with their emissions practices. Its hard to control or tell a developing country that they are not able to emit the levels of gases they need to in order to get to a developed level. The United States had to use its fair share of fossil fuels, and emitted gases when it was developing, so it is a bit hypocritical to tell other countries that they can’t do the same.
The most important barrier in reducing greenhouse emissions domestically is that many American’s don’t want to change, or there is no incentive to change their emission practices. Right now, fossil fuels are cheaper, and more readily available then alternative fuels so its easy for people to just keep using them [2]. I also think that since there aren’t strict regulations in place, such as a carbon cap, there isn’t a real rush to create more efficient fuel, or to keep emissions low [3]. In Copenhagen I wanted president Obama to push for an overall sweeping consensus that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed. I still feel that some of the world leaders are just waiting for the issue to be more important in their citizen’s lives before they act. I believe that if they wait this long it will be too late. In Copenhagen I also wanted Obama to address some sort of plan for developing nation’s use of fossil fuels and their emission’s practices. Since I believe this to be the main obstacle to limiting emissions internationally. If we create a policy on how to deal with the emissions in the future that we know will happen, its just a matter of when, then it won’t be a surprise when we need to deal with it.
In response to the relationship between finding a way to help the environment and the economy I think that we should look to California. California has been one of the states to take a groundbreaking position on global warming and the United State’s emission’s standards, but at the same time it has found a way to do it even though its economy was one of the hardest hit during the recession. One of the ideas that California has implemented is a “cap and trade” system which provides a specific emissions goal but still promotes innovation by allowing these credits of emissions to be traded [4]. California has the 6th largest economy in the world and it is projected that the cap and trade system will increase income by more then 4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs [4]. Growth will be coming from innovative green technologies that will create high-quality jobs and new revenue streams in the economy [4]. Although many policymakers think that the only solution to global warming and climate change is a costly one, I have to disagree. This system that California has implemented promotes innovation and trade, which therefore stimulates the economy. On a final note, I think that climate change and global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed, not only for the condition of our planet but also for the health issues pollution presents around the world.
Sources:
[1]. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/09/eco.cities/index.html
[2]. http://www.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2008/01/11/the-pros-and-cons-of-8-green-fuels.html
[3]. http://www.climatesolutions.org/solutions/federal
[4]. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531324,00.html
The most significant barrier to limiting greenhouse gasses internationally is developing countries. Why would you want to slow economic growth based on industrialization and factory output through stricter climate laws? Obviously, the dangers are real, but developing nations see the opportunity cost of cutting emissions and other polluting practices as too high. In economics, we've talked about convergence, in which a smaller, weaker country improves its GDP to such a high degree and rate that it eventually catches up with the bigger powers. It's understandable that developing nations would bank on certain practices that have high emissions because they're looking to converge with other countries. Domestically, I feel like the average individual is not motivated to do something about global warming. Sure, we recycle, but we also consume millions of pounds of non-recyclable goods. Many citizens think that they, as one person, can't make a difference, so they don't bother making an effort. The irony is this collective indifference towards environmental actions occurs because everyone is thinking the same thing: why bother? A simple change in mindset could radically alter how we approach the environment. Also, I'd like to point out that culturally Americans consume and pollute more. Take, for example, the fact that it's considered cool to drive to school rather than walk or take the bus. Such thinking is directly responsible for higher emissions levels. Domestically, Obama should implement rigorous educational programs that indoctrinate our youth with the dangers of global warming. It should play a larger part in our curriculum. Internationally, Obama needs to create a tangible treaty that can be enforced by law. The Copenhagen Climate Accords have failed to do just this, though they have set a limit on global warming past a total of two degrees celsius (1). Smaller island nations and other areas of the globe that are at high risk from future global warming have called for this to be reduced to one point five percent (2). This seems rational to me. Also, one of the biggest failings of the Accords is the lack of a timetable designed to reduce emissions. Some have suggested a fifty percent reduction in global emissions or at least eighty percent reduction in developed countries' emissions by 2050 (1). This was completely passed over in the Accords. I think such a timetable would be useful. There are many ways to economically control pollution, from pollution permits to a pollution tax. Actually, permits work better, because they can be bought and sold to firms with varying emissions needs. The net effect, though, is still less pollution. Also, firms that sell their permits could actually make an economic profit. One last thing: increased spending is good for the economy, especially, according to Keynesian economics, when a nation is in a recession. It spurs higher production and aggregate demand, both of which are needed in today's economy so to say that environmental protection and reform is too expensive or inefficient is actually a fallacy.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8423831.stm
2. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/2009121972255146647.html
I think that the largest barrier to limiting greenhouse emissions internationally is the fact that we can seem to all ban together as a planet to control them. The world just isn’t in a good enough place right now that we can all sit down and decide what needs to be done. Depending on the level development, each country has different ideas about where or not they want or can help. The truth of the matter is that it’s hard to ask a country that is suffering from acute poverty, malnutrition, and dying young and of preventable diseases to spend billions of dollars to switch to a more expensive energy (2). So you can see why some countries would be somewhat opposed to signing any sort of agreement when they feel like the whole concept of cutting their major energy sources is over looking their interests (4). Developing nations like China, India, and South American countries feel like these developments would cut into their economic growth because of the limits that the deals would set into place (4). Even if the money issue where put aside, as the deal is suggesting to give up to $30 billion dollars to developing countries to help them with the costs of adaptations and mitigation (3), countries are still opposed to the idea because they don’t want to have any legal obligation have on them that might limit their economic growth.
As for limiting greenhouse gases domestically, I think the only thing that is stopping us here is initiative. I think that the United States has everything it needs to really work our carbon emissions down. We have the technology to figure out new resources, we have the ability to raise the money we need for research, and we have the support of the majority of people. What we need is the supreme desire to solve this. What we need to do is look toward our past for inspiration, like the Civil Rights Movement. We need to all rise together and tell the government that we want this solved. We need to treat global warming like the cancer of the earth, holding 60 mile charity walks, making banners, holding parades, and raising money to find a cure! If we all thought global warming like a cancer, then I feel like we would be able to take serious steps toward solving global warming.
I think that President Obama should be pushing for a legal cap of carbon emission on all countries. If we could put a cap on the amount of carbon we released into the atmosphere then we would know the sort of measures we needed to take to bring our carbon levels to a safer level, the first step to beating cancer is to know the extent it has spread and to slow down it’s progress. I think that the way he should address the relationship between the environment and the economy is by making us all see that the economy is more greatly tied to the environment. Perhaps he could propose that everyone that enters into the carbon emission cap deal/group, they could all partake in some sort of free trade agreement or something. The point is, the people of the Earth need (sadly) a little more insentive to save the Earth, then just a warning that eventually we won’t have it.
(1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580564,00.html
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/19/copenhagen.climate.summit.deal/index.html?iref=allsearch
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-summit-china-reaction
Overall I think that the idea of the Copenhagen Climate Conference was a good idea way to tell the world that something needs to be done about global warming. However I don’t think that all that could have been done was. Internationally, I think that the best way to show everyone that global warming is getting worse and worse, is for the US and China to set an example. The US and China are the countries with the largest emissions of greenhouse gases, and if we really want to do something about global warming, the US ad China should be the ones setting the example. However China “hated the notion because it put too much responsibility on a country that has done very well rising in the shadows” (1). To me this is the most important international barrier to limiting greenhouse gas emissions because if the country with the most emissions of greenhouse gases in the world refuses to try to set an example and lower their emissions, how can we expect other countries to do so?
Next, I think the most important barrier domestically is getting people in the US to participate. Despite many efforts throughout the country, the US greenhouse gas emissions have not gone down. From 2001 to 2005, the amount of greenhouse gas the US emitted rose from 6,921 to 7,130 teragrams of CO2 equivalents (2). This number did drop to 7,054 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2006, but there is no data for 2007 yet so we don’t know if it is a start of a decline, or just a one year drop. I think that without the support and the help of the country, the US will not be able to lower the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.
I think that in order to get global support in working on the world’s atmosphere President Obama should push for a more definite plan. The final accord is a statement of intention, not a binding pledge to begin taking action on global warming (3). To me this sounds more like pushing the issue off until later rather than dealing with it now. I think that if Obama is serious global warming and he wants to do something about it, than he should have pushed for a more definite plan in Copenhagen. Also I think it is important that the US and China specifically start doing what they can to lower their greenhouse gas emissions since the US and China are the sources of the largest emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. I think if the US and China start to put more of an effort in, than the rest of the world will be more likely follow.
When addressing the economy and global warming, I think if Obama wants to do something about global warming and start to turn things around, it’s better to start now rather than later. Putting it off will only hurt us in the long run. Also $30 billion has been pledged for adaptations and mitigation for the deal that was made in Copenhagen, which called for all countries to limit global temperature rise to below two degrees Celsius (4). If $30 billion has already been pledged for the deal then it is possible that more will come. Also if Obama is serious about working to lower greenhouse gas emissions that it would be more beneficial to the world to start now to show all the other countries that even though were in a recession we are doing what we can to lower our emissions, which might make other countries do what they can too.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900687.html
2. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20accord.html?_r=1&ref=world
4. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/19/copenhagen.climate.summit.deal/index.html
In my opinion, the most important barrier that is stopping passage of an international treaty limiting the international emission of greenhouse gases is extremely simple: diversity. Diversity is defined as “…different, unlikeness” [1]. This could not better define the different ideologies, priorities, needs and wants of the 120 different nations from all parts of the world that were present at the Copenhagen Conference in Denmark this December [2]. It is extremely improbable to assume that Sri Lanka will have the same priorities in the Copenhagen Conference as Great Britain. Thus, it is expected that the discussions and compromises at the Copenhagen Conference will ruffle some feathers: by some, the efforts at Copenhagen will be seen as too much; by others, those same efforts will be seen as far too little; by still some others, those efforts will be just about right.
Although on a smaller scale, the same argument can be made for this issue domestically. As the people of the United States have proven in most recent times, Americans are opinionated and often dislike their political options. This has been proven in recent elections and polls as discussed in our book and in class [3]. Still, the majority of Americans seem to support a “greener” American and “greener” world: according to USAToday.com, 55% of Americans “…favor the U.S. signing a binding global treaty at the Copenhagen meeting that would require the U.S. to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions” [4]. However, in the same article, the Americans who answered the previous question then responded much differently to: “Which do you think should be a higher priority for the Obama administration right now?,” 85% answered “The Economy” while only 12% answered “To Reduce Global Warming” [4]. (3% had no opinion) [4].
When asked what the president should be pushing for in Copenhagen, I have the immediate answer: “To fix the environment.” When I look at my own answer, I confuse myself. What I specifically want fixed in the environment, I’m not always quite sure. However, I am positive that letting the threat of a ruined environment loom above us unchecked is a huge mistake. Yes, our economy might be in a tight spot right now and yes, illegal immigration is a problem and yes, healthcare is a big issue among many others - still, as far as I see it, if you don’t have a world to live in, you don’t have the possibility to have any of these issues because you and everyone else in the world will be dead and gone due to humanity’s unchecked effect on the environment. I can’t imagine anyone on Earth thinks that ruining the environment and eventually killing the world would be ideal – so why isn’t fixing the environment a bigger priority?
Still, when asked how President Obama should address the relationship between the environment and the economy, I’m pretty stumped. I know that many people don’t see the environmental situation the way I do; I can’t imagine that those people would be very open to an environmental protection program when the economy is bad. In this case, I would turn the environment into a monetary issue. Some may call it disguising the issue; some may call it strategic measures. Either way, if a hard-core business person was told “In as little as ten years, your taxes could substantially increase in order to clean up the environment of the future because we didn’t do it today,” that person wouldn’t like it one bit and would probably encourage and vote for environmental protection legislation. I’m sure that the White House staff can rephrase the gist of the idea to be more politically correct and rephrase it much more eloquently but the idea remains the same. No matter what, I believe that the environmental issues discussed globally at the Copenhagen Conference are of vital importance and need to be fixed as soon as possible.
1: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity
2: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH1SQ20091218
3: Our book and Ms. Aby!
4. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-14-climate-poll_N.htm
I think our main focus should be on funding research for most cost efficient ways to reduce climate change. With the state that our economy was in, many probably feel as though we need to be stingy with our funds, but we’re past the recession, we’re on the road of expansion. What the government needs to do at this point is get money out there. The Copenhagen talks are a perfect opportunity to spend money because in the long run, it’ll benefit the economy by means of more efficient environmental technology and start new areas in the economy that make profit by helping the environment. It’ll also show developing nations that we’re committed to helping the Copenhagen climate change talks. Developing nations want to see commitments by wealthy nations for years more of long-term climate aid financing [1]. So focusing funds towards research would not only hopefully strength our economy but show other nations our support in hopes that they’ll follow. For future benefits, it would help the world for not only us to become a clean-energy economy, but also to help developing nations build clean-energy economies as well [2]. If we all pitch in and do our share to help make the world a better place, it’ll encourage others to join in as well.
[1] http://www.startribune.com/science/79420477.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20accord.html?_r=1
I believe the biggest challenge to eliminating greenhouse gases internationally is the reluctance of many countries to negotiate and to settle on one unified international approach to global warming. The Copenhagen Accords are an example of this failure. There was a lot of hype in the months leading up to the meetings about actually getting something done no\w that Obama is in power and there was supposed to be this global shift to a more friendly and open international society (1). However, the accords produced nothing substantial. Much of the language was vague and consisted of a non binding agreement to fund developing countries and lower emissions. The US still has not signed the Kyoto Protocol which is the closest thing the world has to an international agreement(1). Though the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accords are nice thoughts and definitely a step toward comprehensive climate action they are simply not enough. Global warming is a global problem and thus needs a united global solution(2).
In the US I think the biggest obstacle is also the lack of an international agreement. There is no pressure to get anything done with our climate legislation. The cap and trade was mildly successful in the House because they had Copenhagen breathing down their neck and Obama and the newly elected representatives wanted something to show to the international community (3). John Kerry stated that because there is no pressure internationally nor do legislators have motivation to do anything when they do not see China or other large emitters doing their part to stop emissions (3).
I wanted a binding agreement. I wanted some sort of signed piece of paper that says that large emitters must to be held accountable for their pollution. I also wanted smaller countries to be part of the talks. It is easy for the US to talk about maybe reducing emissions in some distant day. However, many developing countries experience the hardships of climate change. From dryer seasons to harsher storms, these countries do not have the tools that we do to react to the problems global warming causes.
The problem with getting all of this done is that politicians also have to listen to companies. Because that’s how it works in a capitalist system (unfortunately). In the recession businesses are especially looking out for their own interests and they have the money for powerful lobbies. The corporate pressure is also what kept cap and trade from passing this summer and the New York Times blames the European corporations of interfering too much in the Copenhagen talks and dooming them to failure (4).
(1) http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/21/f-rfa-parry.html
(2) http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/2616-copenhagen-consequences
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK3SJ20091221
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/world/europe/21scene.html?ref=world
I personally have not been paying as much attention to this summit as I should have. Through researching the actions and decisions taking place at Copenhagen, I have concluded that the most significant barrier is individual country’s own self-interest. Each country seems to be thinking that their policy is right when there really is not as much compromise taking place as there should be. Following President Obama’s speech on climate control, the UK Guardian said his speech was “long on platitudes and short on specific, bold policy initiatives” (1) Also the title of the article, Obama Copenhagen Speech Falls Flat, seems to be very condescending. I feel like that article really sums up the problem that the countries face while trying to create a new international policy to fix global warming issues. In addition, Al-Jazeera has an article that makes the issue come from the wealthy countries versus the poor countries. (2) This is true because the two different types of countries, developing and developed, have much different agendas and may be greedier if already developed.
Domestically I think that being more efficient is the greatest challenge limiting the United States. The Al-Jazeera article has a quote from the German Chancellor saying “the US offer of an emissions cut of four per cent ‘is not ambitious enough’". (2) A four percent emission cut seems too easy for a whole nation to achieve. The United States needs to take bolder steps in its emissions reform in order to create an impression on other countries around us. There must be something done to motivate the countries that may not be in the same position as us, a superior nation. Americans need to realize that we over-consume and we are not efficient with our waste. Like the chancellor said, 4% is not ambitious enough. The summit is meant for countries to make pledges to change their emissions footprint on the world for the better. To give a solution, the United States needs to drop their need to consume bigger and better things, and become more simplistic.
Obama should be pushing for more cooperation. This is the solution to what I think is the most significant barrier to limiting greenhouse emissions. In the articles the main focus seems to be on the difficulty in compromise between the nations. I think Obama needs to stray away from creating an actual policy and focus more on uniting the nations around him. Before compromise will be made, countries need to be on the same page. There are dangers to this compromise. CNN writes that Obama and other diplomats have seen what they wanted to be achieved though the Copenhagen Accord. President Obama says the agreement was "not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change." (3)
I think that just like Jacob said, we should put a larger work force into producing energy efficient products. During World War II, the American people sought jobs within the war production lines and this really boosted the economy because so many people were working and so much product was being produced. Although energy efficient products to cost more and require more work, more citizens are in need of jobs now than ever.
1) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2504915/obama_copenhagen_speech_falls_flat.html
2) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/20091217112743719119.html
3) http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/22/dabashi.obama.copenhagen.leadership/index.html?iref=allsearch
Global warming is a topic in my mind that is controversial and is politically and economically motivated rather than for the right reasons, not for the environment. I don't think Al Gore,preaching about global warming, flying around the world in his leer jet? It just sounds like he's in this for its economic opportunity and viability. The environment is a very crucial part of the world and also its economy. I hate how people like al gore make a profit off the environment. I think the best way to limit greenhouse gases is either limit carbon emissions or put more oxygen in the air to counterattack the CO2. The biggest producer of oxygen isn't tress but algae. If we create Algae farms (which are inexpensive to make and can take up over water which is 2/3rds of the earths surface)this also help decrease carbon emissions and is a cheaper alternative to trees. I think what the president has to do is use his popularity and positive persona to show the world that the United States is committed to global warming but also make sure that whatever comes out of copenhagen is fair to the United States and the rest of the world.
1 www. youtube.com
2www.washingtonpost.com
I believe the greatest barrier to limiting greenhouse emissions is both developing countries. I feel that having developed countries cut emissions and send money to developing countries could be difficult to get passed. "Leaders of the U.S., China and other major economies said late Friday that they had tentatively reached a new climate accord, though they said the pact wasn't aggressive enough to meaningfully curb greenhouse-gas emissions and merely set up a future round of negotiations to hash out the details." [1]. I believe that this shows that even though they would set up future negotiations, it might take a lot more time that most would want to wait for changes. While developed countries seem to be backing developing ones completely, some may not
like what they have to do."The text left the developing countries outraged, because it called on them to sharply cut their greenhouse-gas emissions; they would prefer to sign an airily non-binding commitment to reduce the rate at which their emissions are growing," [2]. Developing nations may not completely back cutting emissions if it could hurt their growing economies.I also believe the fact that no nation is in a binding agreement, there could be many countries who ignore they target level of emissions. "Nor does the plan firmly commit the industrialized nations or the developing nations to firm targets for midterm or long-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions." [3]. Domestically I believe the biggest barrier in passing a bill is the rumor of the taxes tat would come with it. In the early stages of recovery, I don't think many people would be okay with a bill that effects industry so much. "The EPA does no climate research of its own, and its endangerment finding is predicated on IPCC science, which has been undermined by the revelations about the CRU and its manipulation of scientific data." [2]. I believe this fact greatly reduce support for a bill to be passed. I believe that in the climate we are in most people a focused on repairing the economy and may be angered by the government focusing on this issue as unemployment remains high. I believe the President should be pushing for a binding agreement with developed nations. I believe that an agreement would force countries to develop better technology that would be better for our environment. The President should strongly address relationship between the environment and the economy. With the unemployment rate at 10% I believe many people need the President to explain what this future goal would mean both now and in the long run. People need to know their jobs are secure or there is a good chance of them getting another one or they economic recovery could be more difficult.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126112727324796837.html
[2] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTY4MzM2Y2Y3MDJlYWYzNWQzMTBhZjkyMmUwMzU1NWE=
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=climate%20conference&st=cse
When dealing with world issues and all types of government, it can be difficult to accomplish goals, largely in part because there is no supreme authority to hold countries accountable. This holds true with the issue of greenhouse emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases that are harmful to the environment, and although they know of these emissions and their effects, there has not been a legally binding agreement to stop them (1). The summit in Copenhagen has brought the leaders of countries worldwide to talk about possible prevention, but there is still no way of enforcing these new ideas (2). Several leaders left the summit in frustration with proposed ideas falling short of their goals (2).
I believe this is the biggest issue in reducing greenhouse emissions. There are also no deadlines for new ideas to be put into action, so countries can take as long as they want to change, if they even do (2). In countries like China that are heavily industrialized, it will involve lots of time and money to make these changes, and could potentially affect their economy (1). If there is no authority to hold them accountable, these changes simply won’t happen. It would be like a child getting homework for school, but if they know nothing will happen if they do not do it, the chances of them doing that assignment go down considerably.
A more domestic issue to reducing emissions is the cost it will take during this economic recession. Currently, coal is accountable for 27 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (3). By using natural gas rather than coal, these emissions can be reduced considerably. The previous issues with switching to natural gas, was both the cost and the supply (3). However, new technology in drilling has made it possible to reach 58 percent more gas reserves (3). This is a 90-year supply, which could be very beneficial to not only a reduction in price, but also in emissions by replacing coal (3). The cost of natural gas has also dropped a considerable amount in recent years, making it a reasonable choice now (3).
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/ AR2009122000664.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/ AR2009121800637.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/ AR2009122100621.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/ AR2009121801620.html?hpid=topnews
The most significant barrier to limiting domestic greenhouse emissions isn’t economic. It’s not political. It’s psychological. Global warming isn’t something that one can witness, so it’s easy to forget it exists. It requires technical language to explain, and it’s not universally understood or accepted. We can’t point a finger at a bad guy, like 9/11, or even like the war on drugs, so it’s hard to stimulate strong feelings. Furthermore, everyone will need to sacrifice to fix it. All of these things make it a problem rendered nearly unsolvable by human nature.
While the human nature argument works best for domestic, it can also be applied to international. No country wants to shoulder most of the load, and each hopes the others will volunteer. Even if an agreement is reached, it will be difficult to sell to the masses for reasons listed in the domestic piece. It will be well nigh impossible to force a country to comply if it chooses otherwise.
One thing Obama could pursue in Copenhagen is benchmarks for certain countries for certain things to be met by certain times. For example, country A must be only B% reliant on fossil fuels for automobiles by year C, or else country A incurs penalty D.
To me, the economy and the environment can never be reconciled. The economy somehow works when everyone acts in their own self-interest (in other words, selfishly). The “greed is good” philosophy is an abject failure when it comes to the environment. Acting only in one’s self-interest is a surefire way to raze forests and kill the land, if one doesn’t consider the long term. America is a money-first country, particularly at a time like this. I’m not sure if the people are necessarily thrilled to be taking an economic hit for the environment.
1-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172038.htm
2-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/world/main5355424.shtml
3-http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5BB07F20091218
4-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6253912/Most-people-in-denial-over-climate-change-according-to-psychologists.html
The battle to combat damaging greenhouse emissions intensifies following the weak accord produced from the Copenhagen climate talks. Although the agreement forged by the major country super-powers was designed to curb greenhouse gases and solicit commitment from a majority of countries, it lacked a binding pledge to accomplish these tasks and did not set forth a deadline (3). The prime minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, stated he thought the Copenhagen accord was a process that we must learn from, and “never again” face deadlock or the future of the entire world in the hands of a few powerful countries (2). According to The Guardian, serious consequences of the accord include higher energy bills as the result of falling carbon prices and money spent on developing expensive, technologically advanced plants that would reduce emissions (4). These consequences are a result of what I believe is the biggest obstacle to limiting greenhouse emissions internationally: cooperation, agreement, and action among the nations of the world. Although the Copenhagen accord was reached only a handful of the 193 nations present participated, many refusing to sign the accord or take part in its actions. With each country looking out for their own interests and being reluctant to contribute efforts or money to the universal cause, negotiations are very difficult. This is a world-wide problem that needs to be solved with the involvement of the world-wide countries, which can not be accomplished when there is fighting at the conferences and some countries being accused of imitating the Holocaust (3). The Copenhagen talks demonstrated that the approach to international negotiations is ineffective in this situation and the need to reassess the way UN climate talks operate. A streamlined negotiation process led by Britain would be much more productive, in which groups of countries put forth representatives rather than debating issues among the entire 193 states (2). Especially difficult to negotiate with is China, who refused to let their representative speak to the President for a number of days and with whom the US bantered with for the majority of the Copenhagen conference (3).
Domestically, I believe the biggest obstacle we face is putting forth strong domestic politics that spur scientific innovation and low-emitting sources of energy (1). These two factors would significantly aid the decrease of pollution and greenhouse gases, but are some of the most difficult to develop. If Obama can push for policies that set a deadline and a goal, the US can set an example of “green-ness” that other countries can follow. The second obstacle is aiding developing countries in reducing their pollution, who do not have the financial capabilities to do so on their own. This is a burden the US can not undertake alone, and given the current economy presents a complex problem.
In Copenhagen President Obama should have pushed for a more binding treaty that set specific goals and policies, in contrast to the wishy-washy accord reached that in reality has no effect whatsoever on the issue (1). In order to make a change countries need to have a firm commitment from which they can not back out of, which would dictate the emissions and regulations of their country. Also, President Obama should have pushed for more unity throughout the talks among the separate nations. I realize the difficulty of this task, but by pushing for team work and asking for passion and dedication to save the Earth as we know it he could have won over a number of nations. Instead of focusing solely on the powerful nations with the money, time should have also been spent with developing nations to work out a plan to ensure their role in saving the climate. In the context of our economy, the President must tread lightly and be very conservative when giving money to foreign nations for emissions reduction. First of all, a formal treaty must be reached and signed so that the nations are required to use the money for the specific purpose of improving the environment, and are therefore unable to waste the money or use it on other matters. Secondly, this burden can not be undertaken by the US alone. For the US to contribute money there would need to be a number of other countries also taking part in the global project of environment conservation. Thirdly, the President must remember priorities, and the plain fact that some things come first. The environment is a huge priority, but it can not come at the cost of the well-being and health of the American people. Careful decisions regarding the economy must be weighed in order to determine the effects that a US contribution would have back home.
(1)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-copenhagen-climate20-2009dec20,0,4142635,print.story
(2)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-treaty-gordon-brown/print
(3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20accord.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=climate&st=cse
(4)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/21/falling-carbon-price-higher-energy-bills/print
There are many significant barriers to limiting greenhouse emissions, but I believe the largest and most important is uncooperation. Key countries have been unable to reduce their own emissions, and unwilling to participate. One of the latest drafts in Copenhagen has been called the "Copenhagen Accords" (1). It eliminates the 2010 deadline for a legal agreement and says that global temperature "should be below two degrees" (1). Analysts say this new language is less binding for the countries and more open to interpretation (1). The Copenhagen negotiations appear to be full of confusion and last minute attempts to find a new deal. Tony Blair has also stated that the UK is about to miss a key target on cutting its own greenhouse gas emissions (2). The European Union has said that only the UK and Sweden are on course with existing policies to actually meet EU target levels of emissions (2). Clearly, cooperation and initiation by the larger and more powerful countries in the world is needed.
A huge problem domestically is the major party differences on views of climate change. House Republicans have made it their mission to keep the United States from passing a climate bill, and have warned that anything Obama signs will have to meet with their approval (1). Representative Joe Barton states that "It's not something that's going to be implementable in the U.S. Congress" (1). While I believe it is extremely important that we do something domestically about reducing our greenhouse emissions, I do believe that party differences will, at least for now, keep our country from getting much further. I think it's time that we agree on this issue and realize that if we want the world to be a safer and cleaner place, we need to clean up the mess we've made. The United States needs to take the initiative. However, this will only happen if the Democrats and Republicans can come together on the issue.
President Barack Obama told the UN Climate Conference "that there was no time to waste in brokering a global climate deal and the conference should avoid falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years" (3). Obama proposed that a mechanism be put in place to make sure countries are keeping their commitments (3). The most important thing I believe he emphasized was that not every nation could get what they want, and compromise would have to be reached (3). I think Obama has been pushing for the right things. It's going to be difficult to get countries to agree, but I think his ideals are correct. I do believe that we can do even more to reduce emissions. It's a huge problem that needs to be solved now, and not pushed off for another year or two. I also think that the United States and the largest developed countries should be bearing the bigger part of the burden. The developed countries are the ones who have been the biggest contributors to climate change. While our economy is not in the greatest shape, I believe that despite the costs, this is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed now by President Obama. The United States has a chance to step up and lead the way, and we need to find a way to make it work in spite of a difficult economic time.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/12/18/18greenwire-climate-talks-in-copenhagen-heading-into-overt-54854.html?scp=2&sq=why%20copenhagen%20won't%20work&st=cse
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4077193.stm
(3) http://www.afriquejet.com/news/africa-news/obama-wants-countries'-commitments-on-emissions-reviewed-2009121940350.html
Blog Post #3
12/22/09
The biggest barrier to reducing greenhouse emissions is, quite simply, cost, both internationally and domestically. It costs a significant amount of money to reduce emissions to any notable extent. The compromise from Copenhagen, largely a disappointment to those looking for more serious action, includes a promise from the developed world to send $890 billion to aid in cutting greenhouse emissions in developing countries (1). If we want to fight global warming, we have to be willing to spend no small amount of our GDP towards that end. To decide that, we must look at what global warming would cost us if left unabated in comparison to what it would cost to prevent it.
The extent to which global warming will harm us in the future is oft debated. Although few subscribe to an apocalyptic, Day-After-Tomorrow-esque view of these effects, global warming is expected by many to have serious consequences. It is estimated that climate change will cost the United States alone up to 1.8% of its annual GDP by 2100, due to the various problems it would either cause or exacerbate (2). Of course, the problem with such estimates is that they can only be so accurate. The scientific debate over global warming suggests a certain amount of uncertainty around any estimate of its effects. Similarly, we do not know what future technological developments will enable us to do in regards to greenhouse emissions. Although the development of a stupendous filter that removes all excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is extremely unlikely, it is not unlikely that future technologies will enable us to more effectively prevent greenhouse emissions and reduce their effects. Since technological advancements, may make it more effective to confront global warming later, it may be more sensible to do so later.
The costs of preventing global warming are far from negligible. Typical plans to reduce emissions are expected to cost between $20 per ton of carbon dioxide and $100 per ton of carbon dioxide (3). The White House Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality said that the most aggressive plans "would of course cause a global recession (3)." At least at face value, the costs of combating global warming are outweighed by the costs of leaving global warming unchecked.
As for how President Obama should address the relationship between the economy and the environment, the answer is fairly straightforward. He should have some economists deeply analyze the costs of both combating greenhouse emissions and leaving them unchecked, keeping in mind possible future changes in technology and the accuracy of current climate change predictions. These hypothetical economists could then determine to what extent the U.S., or the world, should reduce their greenhouse emissions. That could mean calling for total reduction, it could mean calling for virtually no reduction, or it could call for any amount of reduction. Although it is too late for him to present such data and conclusions at Copenhagen, he could hopefully do so at the next climate change conference in Mexico City (1).
1. "Time For a Climate Change Plan B," by Nigel Lawson
2. "The Cost of Climate Change" by The National Resources Defense Council
3. "Panel Calculates Cost Of Global Warming Fix" by Marc Kaufman
Global warming, and its affects on the earth have become a large issue around the world. 194 countries participated in the United Nation’s Climate Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark this past December (1). Through out the conference, many scientists, as well as country diplomats provided information and research about global warming, and what the world will look like if we don’t begin to reduce the greenhouse gasses that are destroying the O-Zone.
Although the elimination of greenhouse gasses is the primary goal of all countries, a barrier from reaching that goal is the difficulty to have all countries agree on a common solution. President Barack Obama addressed the conference in a speech on Friday December 18, 2009, presenting a resolution that allows for all to contribute. Obama laid out three main pieces to the resolution. 1st: “All major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions.” He promised that America would reduce its greenhouse emissions by 17% by 2020, and over 80% by 2050. 2nd: Obama explained that there would need to be a form of reviewing the progress made by each country to make sure that they are keeping on track with their commitments. 3rd: Large, well-off countries must help developing countries adapt to the changes brought on by reducing the amount of emissions (2).
Only a small group of countries did not accept Obama’s agreement (1). Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, bashed Obama calling him an arrogant liar, and adamantly protested Obama’s solution, calling it ‘“undemocratic” and “suicidal” because it urges - but does not require – major polluters to make deeper emission cuts” (3). The New York Times reporter, John M. Broder also believes that many of the original goals of the conference were unmet, and that China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the U.S. failed to set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty solution. In his article, Broder quoted Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, who said ‘ “The world’s nations have come together and concluded a historic – if incomplete – agreement to begin tackling global warming”’(4).
A barrier domestically to reducing greenhouse gasses would be finances/ the economy. Currently, the U.S. is $12,103,487,596,325.57 in debt (5), and with the U.S. promising to “mobilize $100 billion by 2020” to help finance developing countries (2), it begs the question, if we can even begin to afford to help stabilize developing countries in the aspect of green energy resources, when we can barely afford to research new alternative energy resources ourselves. Although Obama’s solution is probable, and has taken a significant step forward in the debate of global warming, there are barriers that will need to be overcome before any results will be found.
Work Cited
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21mon1.html?scp=1&sq=copenhagen%20and%20beyond&st=cse
2) http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091218/obamas-copenhagen-speech-video-transcript.htm
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122102342_pf.html
4) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html
5) http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
I believe that the most important barrier to limiting greenhouse gases internationally is lack of initiative and leadership. While Obama has brought many ideas to the table, it seems as though other countries just want more for him. In an article from the Guardian, the blame of how ineffective the conference seemed was placed almost solely upon President Obama for not initiating the right things at the right times (1). In a conference with many countries, the leadership needs to be well balanced without one country taking over to much or other countries will feel pushed around. Had President Obama asserted more power, many countries would feel as though they were being pushed around and would leave the conference anyways.
The most important barrier to limiting greenhouse gases domestically is money. The United States is not in a great economic state at the moment and while issues like global warming are extremely important, they are not on the forefront of everyone’s mind. People are typically in the mindset of every man for themselves and spend only on what you have to. With the federal budget already having issues it is hard for them to tell the states to do stuff on their own however, the federal government does not have money all over the place to give out either. It will cost 1 trillion dollars every year for the next 20 years worldwide in order to get the gases at a stable place. That is a huge budget for this particular issue and very difficult to come up with all that money.
There are many things that Obama needs to accomplish at this conference however, I would argue that he really needs to push for very tight limits on green house gases each country may admit and that everyone must follow. Guidelines are key to something like this and if not everyone follows the rules and some people cheat it will not turn out the way the leaders plan and will end up costing everyone more in the long run. Therefore, I believe if they set rules especially rules that are very hard to follow people will try and stick to them especially if there is a reward tacked onto it. As well, if you have strict rules and people break them then there is built in room for some leniency and there will not be huge downfalls or problems.
I believe that Obama should very much recognize the huge correlation between the fixing of the global warming problem and how much money it will cost (especially in the United States.) Furthermore, he needs to talk more about the budget of the United States and how much either the national budget or each state will need to pay in order to settle this problem in a realistic but efficient amount of time. The budget for just energy infrastructure in order to begin these actions is estimated at 10 trillion dollars. He will need to figure out what part of that number the United States will be responsible for that way he can get a sense of public opinion as well as having the national and state legislatures plan ahead for the probable cost inconvenience.
1. Guardian.co.uk
2.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003715537_warmingcosts21.h
tml
3. http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/cop15-how-much-will-climate-deal-cost
I believe there are some barriers to solving the climate crisis. Developing nations are fast becoming the largest polluters in world. Even though the United States is a developed nation which is now the largest polluter in the world, other countries are using coal and other pollutants high in GHGs. The United States needs to take an initiative and attempt to allow countries to develop faster either in engaging in trade or investing in their development. Either was would increase that counties time in the industrial age so that the time spent on non energy efficient methods would decreased.
There are also some problems with cooperation. Countries cannot reach an agreement on the kinds of alternative energies that should be enacted. These issues create burdens and no one country currently has the initiative to be the leader in these technologies and promote policies for the world to abide by. This makes the world inefficient at these policies and disproportional amounts of emissions in the world. There are countries right now that are not taking the initiative and countries like even though the United States will have massive amounts of coastline lost, like Florida who may lose 10% of the state. [1] If countries could just decide on sometime, we could make some progress but there's such a difference in countries, a (monetary) incentive must be put in place for countries to take action.
[1] http://www.basilandspice.com/living-green/copenhagen-diagnosis-10-of-florida-underwater-by-2100.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think one thing we can all agree on is the potential threat global warming poses on the future of our planet. Dr. Maslowski, a climatologist, says that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap could be ice-free within five to seven years during the summer months (1). Clearly this is an issue that needs attention. That is exactly what 193 other nations were thinking when they met at the Copenhagen climate summit. Currently, five nations including the US, have forged a deal (2). This plan provides a system for reporting progress toward global pollution reduction goals. To accomplish this, billions of dollars need to be given to countries most at risk of a climate change due to global warming (2). It also expresses a goal of limiting the rise in temperature to two degrees Celsius (3). To me, the most important barrier to significantly limiting greenhouse emissions internationally with the current accord, are having all the nations, or at least a significant proportions of nations agree with the plan made by Obama and five other nations. There was a staged walk-out by some nations that didn't approve of the plan (3). Another barrier is actually coming up with a plan that has clear and defined procedures that will actually serve to improve the globe. Obama even admitted that the commitments included in the deal fell far short of what scientists have said is required to combat dangerous global warming (3). Domestically, I think the most important barrier will be to get approval from a majority of Americans. We have such a diverse population of people with many different beliefs that it may be hard to reach a consensus. I think President Obama should be pushing for a more defined plan. The current accord seems to be too vague to actually be helpful. The document is even vague on the financing aspect of this global plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The accord calls for $10 billion in annual funding for the next three years and set a goal of raising $100 billion a year by the year 2020 without an actual plan of how that is going to happen (3). I am unclear if the US is considered to be one of those rich nations and if it is, I am concerned with our level of financial commitment to the $10 billion. Yes the environment is an important thing to consider but my question is, is it so important that we need to be giving huge sums of money to developing countries with our economy in the shape it is now? I want to know the specifics on the U S's involvement financially and also how it is going to affect the people.
1. http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/12/15/santa-to-move-headquarters-to-palm-springs/
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=copenhagen&st=cse&scp=5
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800637.html
I'd like to agree with Jacob Sandry. Economics is the biggest barrier to successful "green" policies. While writing a paper for Econ, I researched India, one of the up-and-coming nations that will overcome Germany, the UK, and France in 2020 in terms of their economy (1). India has stated that they cannot afford to curb greenhouse gasses emissions (2). It makes sense, considering the need to pollute during industrialization. Other developing nations, like China, will find it difficult to put millions of dollars into "green" technology.
I'd like to disagree with Julia. I think the United Nations and the European union is a perfect example of countries working together. Countries may have differences from time to time, but they are definately capable of implementing changes and coordinated policies. With the right incentives or the right rules, countries can certainly work together. The problem is there was no order or organization to the Copenhagen talks. No country was necessarily forced to bend to the will of the group.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climate-change-carbon-emissions
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/copenhagen-climate-talks_n_390750.html
It has long been known that the release of fossil fuels into the environment may have deleterious affects. Just how much it affects the environment has been one of the raging debates of the decade. When Al Gore released his documentary on global warming in 2006, the topic became a hot one. More recently, a conference in Copenhagen was held between several major countries. From December 7th to December 18th, India, Brazil, China, the United States, the European Union, and several other major countries met in Denmark to forge a plan on climate change (1). The biggest barrier to a global agreement on emissions restrictions is disagreements on how many restrictions are needed. Smaller, island countries want to goal to be to keep the temperature from rising 1.5 degrees C (2), while the current deal recognizes the need to keep the temperature from rising 2 degrees C from pre-industrial temperatures (2). However, the deal does not place any restrictions that would keep the temperature from rising above that threshold, which U.N. scientists say is the point where massive changes would occur in the climate (2). Several countries were also upset with the way the deal was reached, as the smaller countries were left out of the negotiations entirely (3). In my opinion, the biggest obstacle for restricting emissions domestically is that people think that other issues facing the United States, such as the economy, healthcare, abortion, and the War on Terror, are more deserving of immediate attention.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/21/21climatewire-obama-negotiates-copenhagen-accord-with-senat-6121.html?scp=5&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8422133.stm
(3)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?scp=16&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home