Yes and no. One big question we all must ask ourselves as we explore climate change is whether global warming can be reversed. Scientific evidence has proven that global warming is occurring at unprecedented rates, leading many – such as myself – to wonder what, if anything, can be done to reverse the affects.
First and foremost, we need to acknowledge there is a huge problem. As I explored last week, there is often denial in society about the affects climate change can and will have on our way of life. Many believe that small steps such as driving less and buying Apple computer software will fix everything.
Making matters worse is that policies have been informed using this same ideology. It wasn’t until 1992 that nearly all of the nations of the world gathered to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Although in theory a good idea, this treaty was legally non-binding and therefore had no enforcement mechanism to attain its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
It took another 13 years to draft and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, that to this day has not been ratified by the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed countries to have the greatest responsibility in greenhouse gas reduction because they emit the most. This is clear when we look at cities like Los Angeles, that on a regular basis are covered by a thick layer of smog. The American Lung Association of California reported that smog can lead to lung cancer, heart attacks, asthma attacks, strokes, and early deaths to name a few.
Although developed countries should play a large role in gas emissions, it is important that developing nations also play a large role. Developing nations such as Brazil are home to immense natural resources such as the Amazon Rain Forest, which has for years been absorbing some carbon emissions. However deforestation and land & water degradation from mining are threatening the future of Brazils’ rain forest and ultimately our planet.
As is apparent in both developed and developing countries, harm is being done to the environment and for that reason the next protocol should not include any flexibility. If we are to address climate change in a timely manner, we cannot afford to institute different standards. In the case of developed countries, they must take drastic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by shifting towards a green economy that considers the environment as an external costs. On the other hand, developing countries must use sustainable development tactics to grow their economy instead of going down the same path that has left developed countries in this position.
The future of the planet is in our hands and by using a sustainable and expedient approach at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen to inform policy we can and will see a ‘cooler’ day.
Works Cited:
American Lung Association of California
CIA – The World Factbook – Brazil
Flexibility is the ability to bend without breaking. Some need this flexibility in order to be able to comply with regulations or standards. Others abuse of this flexibility, bending things to the point of breakage. The key is to be able to implement regulations so that there is enough room for flexibility but not enough room for abuse, which is quite difficult. The question that lies on the table is whether “flexible mechanisms” should be including in the next protocol. In order to answer this we must evaluate the “flexible mechanisms” used in the Kyoto Protocol (Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and Emissions trading). Based on the Climate Change Business Forum’s (CCBF) article “Market Mechanisms”, the CDM gave developed countries the flexibility to financial assistance to developing countries that heavily depend on fossil fuels, as opposed to being confined to solely concentrating on their own country. This was beneficial to developing countries but allowed leeway for developed countries to ignore their own responsibilities. The CCBF also summarizes the JI, stating that it is very similar to the CDM, apart from investing in green projects in other developed countries as opposed to developing countries. Emissions trading seems like a good idea to me because the European Union has been conducting it, with some sort of positive outcome, and I think it can become a global phenomenon. I feel it gives countries more of an incentive to “go green” at a faster, more efficient rate, so they may profit by selling their carbon allowance. According to the UNFCC’s article “Uniting on Climate Change,” “concerns have been voiced that the mechanisms could allow Parties to avoid taking climate change mitigation action at home, or could confer a ‘right to emit’ on Annex I Parties or lead to exchanges of fictitious credits, undermining the Protocol’s environmental goals.” I too share this concern, because although there are many benefits to these “flexible mechanisms”, the flexibility in these mechanisms provide loopholes that many countries will be willing to jump through to save as much money as possible, taking the easy way out. So how do we draw this distinction between necessary flexibility and abuse? We can try to impose regulations, such as those set up by the Marrakesh Accords, which created “no right, title, or entitlement to emit [greenhouse gases],”but I honestly do not think there is a concise answer. Despite my lack of trust, I do think that there should be only enough flexibility in the next protocol so that each country is equally accommodated, and accounted for, a task not easily completed on such a large scale, especially because of implementation issues. What do you think?
Tags: COP15 Resources, Flexible Mechanisms, kyoto, student-citizens, week 3
Have we ever had the option of being inflexible?
Given the present reality of emission goals and the announcement by certain countries that they will have difficulty reaching their emission reduction goals if at all (Japan and Canada), I think it is safe to say that flexibility mechanisms will be an necessary part of any future treaties.
There are three types of “flexibility” mechanisms:
– Cap-and-trade
– Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
– Joint Implementation (JI)
There are many pros and cons for each, with many strong support for as well as strong opposition against cap-and-trade.
While I will not delve deeply into why their implementation is controversial, I will give a brief outline of each. I will also explain why, regardless of how one feels about these, they will probably become a crucial component of countries’ efforts to comply with the COP treaties. Finally, I will give my two cents as to what positive effects the flexibility mechanisms may have on the international struggle against climate change.
Cap-and-trade is probably the most famous mechanism of the three. It basically applies principles of economics to emission caps and allows countries to trade emission credits in order to reach their goal. So for example, if Iceland met its goal for reduction in emissions and went beyond its goal (which it did), it could sell it’s extra credits to countries like, Canada, which are in a real bind and with little prospects of reaching their goal.
Clean Development Mechanism (henceforth CDM) is a mechanism through which an Annex I country can receive credit for implementing any sort of mechanism or technology that would help a developing (or non-Annex I) country to lower its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Joint Implementation is basically the same as CDM, except that it is between two Annex-I countries.
If applied correctly, these mechanisms can be beneficial to the international effort to reduce total GHG emissions. Other benefits include:
– Helping struggling countries meet their emission reduction goals
– Motivate countries to help other countries reduce their emissions
– Serve as incentive for countries to go beyond their goal in order to sell credits
– Increase international cooperation
– Reduce total emissions in the long run
A video of Ecogeek explaining how Cap and trade works:
Tags: Andrea Dominguez, cap and trade, climate change, COP15 Resources, ecogeek, Flexible Mechanisms, kyoto, Kyoto to Copenhagen, week 3
According to the May 30, 2008 CRS Report for Congress regarding the Kyoto Protocol, the Protocol’s “flexible mechanisms” provision is one of the key areas of debate. In his book Kyoto2, author Oliver Tickell provides a strong case against the presence of flexible mechanisms in international climate policy, particularly focusing on the “most important flexible mechanism-The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).” Tickell’s work combined with the work of scholar Ian H. Rowlands makes it difficult to argue in favor of the CDM.
Tickell terms the CDM “ineffective, inefficient and abuse-prone,” detailing specific examples of the CDM failure. In particular he sites the lack of oversight in Chinese hydro projects and emissions-laden sponge iron operations in India. Tickell cites an academic study by Christoph Sutter and Juan Carlos Parreno which analyzed sixteen CDM projects. Their study concluded that eleven of the sixteen projects did not deliver emissions reduction and did not result in a “high rating” of sustainable development. After reading Kyoto2, the reader has little hope for a successful CDM program.
In an October 2001 article in Third World Quarterly, scholar Ian H. Rowlands provides a systematic analysis of the CDM through ecological, economic, and social lenses. He explains that the debate over CDM is usually categorized into two camps: those who are opposed to using the international market to reach emission limitation objectives, and those who believe using the international economic market principles is most effective. Rowlands organizes the conflicting opinions around three essential topics of CDM. The most important of which is the issue of “supplementarity”, also known as the question of “how much of emission reduction should be within a country’s own territory?”
Australia, the US and Canada are all in favor of the least restrictive policy on “supplementarity.” These three countries do not want a cap on how much effort should be at home and how much should be in the developing world, where emissions are “cheaper to mitigate.” Most European nations oppose this belief, chiefly based on economic concerns. To Europeans, if CDM use was restricted, new technological developments would be stimulated (as opposed to encouraging more widespread use of existing technologies). The importance placed on new technologies appeared frequently in Rowland’s work.
A combination of Tickell’s and Rowland’s work provides a broad understanding of the arguments opposed to the CDM. Combined, there is a fairly strong case, but not a very descriptive portrayal of the position favorable to CDMs. The Ministry of Climate and Energy of Denmark provides a somewhat-neutral piece on flexible mechanisms, but explains that “up until the summer of 2008…CDM projects represent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of about 220 million tons of CO2 equivalents a year.” In the short term, this evidence in favor of CDM is convincing.
As we learned with the onset of man-made caused climate change, thinking in the “short-term” does not suffice. We must consider the long term and future generations more often in our policy decisions. The question then becomes, “to what extent do we consider the future?”
Tags: Clean Development Mechanism, Flexible Mechanisms, Oliver Tickell
With so many delegations from all around the world present in the conferences, it will be really hard for every single of them to voice their own concerns. Since conducting negotiations among so many individuals is almost impossible, most countries tend to form coalitions to share information and have a representative to present their ideas. This is a great way for those small countries which do not hold much power to let their voice be heard.
The Group of 77 was founded in 1964. It was originally composed of seventy seven developing countries, but the number grew bigger. It was founded under the purpose of promoting communication between the north and the south, and safeguarding developing countries’ interests. Even though China only has an associate membership, it supports other members’ reasonable and justicial requests. China and the group have been maintaining a favorable partnership and that is where the name of “the Group of 77 and China” came from. It is the largest intergovernmental coalition recognized by United Nations. The group’s members all have very diversed backgrounds such as being small islands, least developed countries, and very large nations. So what makes them group together and share mutual recognitions? Because they share the same desire to:
– extricate themselves out of poverty
– achieve sustained economic development
– gain power and influence
Since all the members in the group are developing countries, it will be extremely hard for them to overcome serious climate change problems once they happen. As for putting out efforts to prevent climate change, they have limited ability to offer because of technological and capital contraints. The G-77 and China thinks developed countries have the obligation to provide developing countries with financial and technological assistance to help them find out a way to be sustainable and to be able to achieve economic growth at the same time. They strongly believe that no plan or strategy would be affective if developing countries could not have access to enough financial and technological aid. But the lack of fulfillment by developed countries concered the G-77 and China and made it present the issue during the UNFCCC’s Bali conference. With developing countries’ persistence, all the parties finally achieved unanimous agreement to provide necessary assistance to developing countries.
The outcome of developing countries forming huge coalition and having the assistance from China turned out to be prominent because they have more power and influence in discussing global issues. But there are definitely problems existed such as some tiny delegations being unable to actively participate in the negotiations.
If we do not distinguish by terrains, we can say that at the moment, poor people in developing countries and the least developed countries are the ones who are suffering from climate change the most and they cannot help it. Take developing country Pakistan for example, its greehouse gas emission only counts for 0.43% of the world’s total, but low emission does not change its vulnerable condition when it comes to climate change. The difference between wealthy and poor people is the ability of mobilizing resources. As the climate change is bringing more disastrous and extreme weather conditions, wealthy people in developed countries will be able to handle it because of having abundant capital and technological resources while poor people cannot do anything about it. That is why developing countries proposed the idea of having shared but differentiated responsibilities. Only in this way can developing countries still maintain the standard quality of living, and at the same time, they can try to ameliorate the climate change effects.
Developing countries should let their voice and justicial proposals be heard in COP15 taking place this December in Copenhagen. This might be hard for one single developing country, but by uniting, it makes a huge difference.
Works Cited
Regime Participants
Xinhua News
Tags: climate change, coalitions, COP15 Resources
Your Comments