The feasibility of climate change negotiation - Coursework Example

 The feasibility of climate change negotiation Name: Professor’s Name: Course: Date The feasibility of climate change negotiation Introduction Adverse problems attributed to climate change continue to rock the world today. This has sparked a growing interest in climate change negotiations over the best ways to combat climate change, govern research, deployment and legal responsibilities for possible damages. The debates often share a common premise: climate-engineering systems employed will strive to cause global effects that could potentially save nations and populations in far-flung and vulnerable regions. Climate change negotiations come up with proposals to regulate or control climate engineering (Quiggin, 2013). They focus on: Designing multilateral agreements to enforce binding obligations on a broad community of consenting governments. Establishing principles of international law to determine liability for damages prior to engaging in any climate engineering activity. Delineating duties under international human rights law to control activities that would harm protected indigenous populations or ecological resources. Various governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have attempted to synthesize the evidence on climate change. The organizations address climate change by use of large-scale models. However, despite the attempts made, climate change is still a problem that humankind is facing. This is because policy makers and politicians with very limited time and a little background in science and economics are addressing climate change. Climate change negotiations should be carried by the use of simple and robust analytical frameworks. This will allow policy responses to climate change be accessed based on a small number of input parameters. The importance of climate change negotiations, standard models of models of climate, economic activity and energy use, thus study analyzes the feasibility of climate change negotiations. Climate change negotiations There is an increasing unanimity among the scientific and the global community at large that the earth’s climate is changing. Human activities have been the number suspects contributing to climate change. Climate change cognizance has been followed by increasing awareness and concern among the public. The earth’s climatic conditions are at an advanced stage of making the world inhabitable. Unless organizations employ the correct mitigation efforts, irreparable changes may be inflicted on natural habitats that are used to feed humans, plants and animals. Climate change problems are shared, and they require a shared, unified and cooperative response. The world community needs to establish climate change mitigation that encompasses radical restructuring of the way the world’s economies function. The developed world is the main contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the consumption and unattainable means of production. The efforts put in place to mitigate climate change by the developed nations are not enough. Nations need to congregate and develop an action plan that can ensure effective climate change preventive measures work. Various climate change negotiations that have been by the United Nations have taken place. The Copenhagen Conference of the Parties (COP15) in 2009 deliberated on climate change as one of its main agendas (Batalha & Reynolds, 2012). The parties demonstrated widespread expectations of commitment for action. The action plan was to be implemented after the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. Despite the fact the Copenhagen meeting was hyped with hope, anticipation and high ambitions, it produced nothing in the end. There were no agreements or solutions proposed to solve the problem of climate change. The conference came up with a meager document containing mere aspirations and no binding commitments from the state parties. The document lacked no concrete goals and measures because the countries only agreed to take note of the Copenhagen Accord (UNFCCC, 2009). The reliance on natural science to identify climate change problems and predict the effects of GHG emissions, nothing much has been done. The conflict played at the COP15 demonstrated clearly that more serious engagement with social and behavioral science is necessary to salvage the world. The world needs to understand the social and behavioral changes including the role of leadership and social influence. The bulging world population that has led to demand for more resources is one of the problems that need to be addressed amicably. This will help and explain how to reach a binding solution to the climate change problem. Climate change negotiations cannot solve the earth’s climate problems. Strict management through government involvement and regulation should be used. However, this is not the case. Many governments are concerned about boosting their economies. Mining of coal, clearing of forests for agriculture and use of pesticides to boost crop harvest is the order of the day. The world should not act based on individual moral values. Climate change matters should be disassociated from people’s ability to determine right or wrong. This is because all the concerned parties will try to pull based on their interests in the negotiation. Some have argued for the privatization of resources from the dynamics of the commons. Restrictions amongst users of a shared resource such as forests and polluter pay systems have also been proposed. However, these have not worked because climate change is a globally pervasive problem. Climate change negotiations are marred with interests of the nations represented. The world leaders negotiating strategies to counter climate change are faced with the same tensions as individual herders. The only difference between the individual herders and the world leaders is the conflict is structured collectively, but under the umbrella of blocks of nations such as NATO, the European Union (EU) and the Africa Union (AU). Tension between the poor developing nations fighting for their people to be lifted from adverse poverty and disadvantages attributed to increased resource consumption is always rife with the rich and developed nations who are always willing to maintain current distributions and their accumulated share of the global commons (Depledge, 2010). The Copenhagen climate change negotiations were centered on how to amend the entrenched disparities of resource use across the divide. There is a big difference in resource use between the developed and developing nations. Entrenching and monitoring commitments and participation are also a problem between different parties. Self-interest and free riding among nations supersede climate change negotiations and remedies. Many nations do not follow the agreed global policies to prevent climate change. The biggest contributors of GHG emissions in the world have had problems in monitoring of commitments. Lack of monitoring to enforce climate change negotiations has led to free riding. This has led to a shift of economic advantage from nations with selfless interests to those with ways that are more self-interested. Distrust among nations is the leading inhibitor of commitments to climate change negotiation with every nation pulling to suit its needs. Climate change negotiations have not helped in the reduction of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. The Conference of the Parties (COP) that established the Kyoto Protocol aimed at ensuring countries reduces their GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Despite setting a legally binding agreement, which set GHG reduction targets, much has gone undone. The protocol has failed completely to control climate change (Heffernan, 2011). The COPs that attended the negotiations have not brought about regulations to combat man-induced climate change to date. This shows that climate change negotiations that are being carried out are a waste of resources since they can never the climate problems facing the world today. The United Nations conferences are field-configuring events that are vital catalysts of climate change. They develop global solutions to complex problems in the world. They encourage the use of renewable energy like solar and wind for our energy sources. However, the needs of the developing nations are increasing with a speed more than population growth itself. Despite the efforts put in place in the UN conferences, many nations prefer to use oil because it is their number one dollar earner. These nations do not hinder to the conferences. Continuous use of coal products leads to the addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This leads to climate change as these gases trap sun’s rays in the earth’s atmosphere leading to global warming and eventual climate change. Climate change negotiations are marred by procedural hurdles and increased acrimonious atmosphere. The climate change long term negotiations at the 2012 UNCCC in Doha were concluded with modest results. The crucial issue of climate change mitigation was received no proper backing to come up with strategies to save the world from climate devastation. This was the case with the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action towards a 2015 climate agreement. The negotiations have failed to deliver an effective strategy with legal backing that can be used by all stakeholders from 2020. GHG emissions are all time high as countries open up new industries and standards of living increases. Climate change negotiations use procedural questions, which have played an important duty in the discussions. However, the negotiations are characterized by controversies over the agendas. The negotiation lack transparency, decision making and interpretation of the consensus requirements is very poor. The negotiations are controlled by multinationals that make the biggest contribution to climate change. Any decision passed by the negotiations is in favor of the oil marketers, industry owners and nations with the highest emissions of GHGs. The climate change negotiations can never be feasible because the parties with the highest to lose ensure their interests are protected in the conferences. The adoption of the UNFCCC was a broader move by the United Nations to address climate change. However, the body has failed to meet its initial goal of ensuring the negotiations held by the state parties ensure a safe environment for future generations. The body has created international institutions and models on climate change mitigation that only exists on paper. According to Moncel & Asselt (2012), the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action in 2011, which was held after the bungled Copenhagen Accord has not made amends in the climate change fight. Country's industries have grown increasing GHG emission into the atmosphere. The world’s major sources of energy are coal and electricity, which are non-renewable sources of energy that have devastating effects on the earth’s climate. Climate change is linked to many environmental problems facing the world today. The earth has experienced increased temperatures in the past few years. Coral reefs, which are habitats for millions of marine life, have also been destroyed as water body temperatures rise. The Vienna convention, which was held in 1985, has not helped much. Efforts to go green are not being pushed hard by these conventions. The climate mitigation strategies being put in place are attempts by individuals to combat climate change. They are driven by increased bad weather patterns and prolonged drought in certain regions of Africa, especially the Sahara. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol promoted the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that contribute to climate change. The parties that were involved in the Montreal Protocol met later in 2007 to amend their mistake. The resolution of phasing out HCFCs and HFCs has not been implemented. These substances are still in use in our industries leading to increased climate change. This shows that the negotiations not only pass substandard and lame proposals, but also pass resolutions that contribute to climate change. Climate change and human actions have deep effects on human beings, governments and the ecosystems that drive their economies. There is increased strain on human, ecological and economic environments that can be attributed to climate change. Climate change awareness in some poor and developing nations is very low. These nations practice poor economic activities that lead to climate change. Deforestation as human encroachment on forests for settlement and farming is widespread in these countries. This result in dry water sources, uneven climatic patterns due to earth’s climate change. The climate change negotiations should come up with policies and propose technologies to help the poor nations in maintaining their natural ecosystems. This will help mitigate climate change effects in these regions, which are hard hit. The G20 countries should be on the forefront in the creation of cars that emit less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These nations have enough resources to a successful transition from high-carbon economies to low-carbon emissions. However, large investments are required to achieve these goals. The pledge by developed nations to mobilize more than US$100 billion by 2020 to establish a Green Climate Fund is a good proposal. Most of this money will come from institutions outside the direct control of the UNFCCC. Thus, it will be difficult to ensure these institutions go green as their actions are not controlled or monitored by the various environmental bodies. Climate change negotiations are not supported by all the relevant bodies charged with climate change mitigation. The UNFCCC has support from other world bodies, nations and organizations fighting climate change. Most of the international institutions have done less to combat climate change. In some instances, multinational corporations use these institutions to force their cause in the negotiations. These results in passage of proposals that do not help prevent climate change. It is important for climate change negotiations to be centered on the prosperity and security of the world in the future. Self and corporate interests should be kept out of the negotiation's tables. Climate change negotiations have failed in saving the world from destruction. The US has in the past contributed to uncertainty in the negotiations. The US has in the past rejected convention's proposals to prevent poisonous gases from being emitted into the atmosphere. This was demonstrated when the US led by President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol and its proposals of GHG cutbacks. The US claimed that the proposal would affect her economy and give advantage to China and other developed nations that were exempted from the mandatory cutbacks. The US has called for voluntary and practical measures to reduce GHGs. However, with a world where each country wants to be the best, no country can adopt voluntary measures that can undermine its ranking in the world order. It is important for climate change negotiations to be hankered by legal actions to any country that does not adopt the proposals. The US-China standoff has been a major drawback in climate change negotiations. Each country has dared the other to go fast in implementing climate change measures in their processes. These two world economic giants have argued that their GHG emissions are lesser than the other, and any cutbacks would curtail economic and social development in their countries. Thus, climate change negotiations that are having no backing of the major contributors of climate change are not feasible. The developing nations have about time and again argued that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility should be used in climate change negotiations. These nations have blamed the developed world for all the problems in climate change that are affecting the world. These nations have challenged the West and Asia to take the responsibility of cutting down on their GHG emissions. The developing nations have put their economic development ahead of climate change mitigation efforts. However, these countries should accept the fact that their actions are contributing to climate change and any adverse effects, rocks these nations first. Thus, they must push for climate change negotiations that favor the use of technologies that are less harmful to the environment. Climate change negotiations such as the UNFCC, COP and the Kyoto Protocol are bargaining processes where the party with the strongest and the loudest voice wins. The parties try to reach a consensus based on their strengths and how well the proposals are compatible with their requirements. Climate change negotiations are also marred with consensus among state parties. The negotiations are characterized with stalemates about all decisions that need to be met. The procedural tradeoff between efficiency, fairness or legitimacy confronts the state parties. This results in conclusions influenced by the parties’ interests and views. The negotiations in striving to reach a compromise that is reasonable for all nations. This results in states with objections not raising them and opts to making statements on their position. Conclusion The earth is experiencing a tragedy of the commons while the world leaders watch. They believe that that can wait and act later. Scientific and events such as earthquakes, global warming, prolonged drought and hurricanes are all loud calls for action. The climate change negotiations carried out by UNFCC, and other institutions are not feasible to combat climate change. The resolutions passed by state parties are influenced by self-interest and dare games in their implementation. Climate change involves natural resources, people and governments that play a big role.. Moreover, the resources available on earth are over exploited. Some people have more than they require while others do not have enough. Human consumption is also increasing the demand for goods and services. The technological revolution has improved energy efficiency. Despite the fact that one can obtain equivalent services with less initial energy, there are still energy deficiencies in the world. The world needs to provide insight on both natural and social sciences in order to enhance understanding and solutions to the climate change problem. This is because since it is a shared problem, it requires a shared solution. References Batalha, L. & Reynolds, K. (2012). Aspiring to mitigate climate change: Superordinate identity in global climate change negotiations. Political Psychology, 33(5), 743-757. Depledge, J. (2010). At the limits of global diplomacy. Environmental Policy and Law, 40, 17- 22. Quiggin, J. (2013). Is it too late to stabilize the global climate? The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 57, 1-14. Heffernan, O. (2011). Crossing the threshold. Nature Climate Change, 1, 371-396. Moncel, R. & Asselt, H. (2012) All hands on Deck: Mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(3), 163-175. UNFCCC. (2009). Copenhagen Accord. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Appendix UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNCCC: United Nations Climate Change Conference Read More