All countries should have a climate change ministry
Climate change is the most important challenge facing the world today. Every country should recognise the importance of tackling climate change by creating a climate change ministry. This could coordinate efforts both within each country and between nations rather than the foreign office negotiating abroad and various departments implementing environment policy.
However, such a demand is unlikely to be accepted as countries have differing governmental systems and cultures, and this would be perceived by some to be a violation of sovereignty. Moreover a major department like the Ministry of Finance taking on climate change might have more influence to push through changes than a minor department specifically on climate change, or it may just seek to keep climate change off the agenda. So should everyone follow a standard of having a climate change ministry?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
A climate change ministry could raise awareness
hello, one of the issues with the parts of the world where environmental degradation is worse hit is lack of awareness of environmental sustenability. Plans such as enlightement programs will enable citizens to adapt a sustenable life style which in turn will translate to less damage to the environment.
Recycling rubbish and planting a tree, or government going to force us to count up our carbon emissions and change our energy guzzling ways. Conduct workshop on environmental protection.
A seperate climate change ministry is best suited to carrying out this kind of work in raising awareness of the problem. It does not have any conflicting agendas or messages it needs to put out as for example a finance ministry would. So it can focus on a message of reducing climate change without having to worry about the economic growth of the country or other issues.
A climate change ministry cannot be a definite answer to the problem. The need at present is to streamline the existing departments to perform their duties in a environment friendly manner.
A burden of an extra ministry will put great pressure on the finances of any poor country.
In addition to this there will be an extra problem of the jurisdiction of the ministry. Since most countries already have an environment ministry, it will be very tough to chalk out a niche for the new climate change ministry so as to define the points that it would cover.
Lastly, a new ministry now would mean that work which is being done by other departments related to the topic will have to be shifted to this new ministry and that will take a lot of the very little time we have for action.
yes it shows nations are serious
I strongly subscribe to having the ministry will help in achieving sustainable Environment.
Creating a climate change ministry is not only helpful for the practical and organisational benefits it brings but because it is symbolic. Creating a climate change ministry shows other nations that it is serious about climate change, so pushing the issue higher up the agenda. Moreover it shows the citizens of the country that climate change is a serious issue along with other issues such as the economy, foreign policy, security, health etc. This in itself shows citizens that they must do something and that if they themselves dont the government will.
A Ministry focussed towards climate change with clear understanding of suitable regional strategies
We are all bound together by the tie of climate change; however, despite there being many common ways to tackle the increasing problem of climate change there are still many tasks and problems that are largely unique to a nation.
As a British Council, climate change champion, I had the opportunity to interact with our counterparts in China. Through this interaction we realized, that the major problem in China is handling of e-waste and plastics. Now, this is a problem common to India too, but there are numerous other regional problems as well. For instance, we have a large scope of rural development also. Thus, we face individual challenges as well. To combat climate change, we need a balance between urban and rural development, many strategies being different for each environment.
This is where a Climate Change ministry is going to be helpful. With a group of individuals having authority, focussed only towards climate change, there is definitely going to be a success in this direction. This ministry can be devoted towards balancing and creating strategies suited to both rural and urban regions.
Hence, I support the motion of creation of a climate change ministry.
I agree!This time with a difference. Usually there is a mindset that only the old can get into political and social ages,i think keeping in pace with time there could be provisions for young passionate people who deserve it to also be ministers.after all its not the age but the environment that matters!:)
Just another useless institution marking the inefficiency of bureaucracy. Is there a need for a climate change ministry with paid employees? It is just more money going around to people not really doing anything. What would such a ministry do? Spread awareness? we have institutions for that. Provide funds? ministry look for people to provide funds, we have fundraisers. Advise governments on environmentally efficient solutions to problems? Yup , that is already there too.
Question: Should they go for "tough" limits on emissions and risk getting no deal, or should they compromise?
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating agressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development fo find solutuons to our nuclear waste problem.
A drop in the ocean!
Creating a ministry for climate change will mean that the government is giving more funds over to fighting climate change because it is individual ministers who fight their corner for the demartment when the finance department does their spending reviews. With a minister for the environment he will fight hard to get the money that is necessary to fight climate change because it is his job. Whereas if climate change is part of a bigger ministry such as energy the main priority for funding will be for energy - the minister would have fought in spending reviews on the basis of getting funding for energy infrastructure etc. The money for climate change within that department would then slowly be devoted to the main issue for the department rather than the issue of climate change.
A climate change ministry, to me, is ok but its just like a drop in the ocean. Because it is very possible that, for instance, all countries could create a ministry of climate change and yet the the problems would still remain. Also I am yet to be briefed properly what the role of such a ministry would be? What's the point of such a ministry when some countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and some European countries are not perturbed about climate change. I am so sure the ministry would be starved of necessary funds to articulate its mandate.
Just because there is a climate change ministry does not mean that the funding will flow. In these nations like Saudi Arabia having a seperate minister would not help secure funding, they would recive nothing except for bits and pieces so that that nation can show off what an amazing job it is doing in its fight against climate change. Probably some big project like a big field of solar panels - this would ofcourse be in the desert next to Saudi Arabia's famously wasteful agriculture![[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation_in_Saudi_Arabia]] In essence the ministry would be a fig leaf.
Climate Change Ministries can maintain cooperation and development between states
MAny countries have different kind of ministries although there is nothing being done upon those issues that ministries has indulged. On the other hand, if there are climate change ministries of each countries that pursue researches, works and checking on certain areas of industry, nature ...etc. it would be more beneficial for nations to make concrete steps by having chance of international cooperation.
Most countries have a ministry of environment or natural resources that perform the same function. In most countries formation of a ministry leads to further red tape and unnecessary beareucracy.
Climate change is a highly global phenomena with events in one area affecting another.
Hence id rather have climate change collaboration on a regional , continental or global level rather than national level and have another hurdle in fighting climate change
It could bring science and policy together.
How often do you hear people in politics talk about aerosols? When I attended the International Symposium on Tropospheric Profiling (ISTP) in October, this was all what the scientist talked about. Aerosols are as important to the global climate as greenhouse gases are. Yet the general public doesn't even know what the word means.
This is just one example of the huge gap between science and policy. If there would be an climate change ministry in each country, policy would be more focused on the wellbeing of our climate. Climate effects everything, from the environment and healthcare to the economy and foreign affairs.
DOMINANCE AND CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC
The Arctic region has long been considered international territory. Five countries—Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the United States—share a border with the frozen Arctic Ocean. Some of these nations have claimed parts of the region to be their territory.
Underlying the interests in the area are potentially vast oil, gas and other resources, as well as the opening up of lucrative passages for trade and economic activity as climate change reduces the amount of ice in the region. As a result, these nations have been vying for dominance in the Arctic.
Climate change provides an additional threat — not just to the local wildlife and indigenous populations that are already seeing their surroundings change rapidly, but to the rest of the planet, too. While retreating sea ice may open up shipping routes, the regions ability to reflect sunlight back into space would diminish, further increasing climate change effects
creating awareness and securing environmental policies
Every nation that is serious about the enivronmet should really consider having a climate change ministry, as this wouldn't only help with creating awareness but also maintaining it and looking for other creative means to get the message across. Also having a climate change ministry would help secure qualitative enivronmental policies that would put human and enivronmental interraction in the center of policy making. for far too long policies have been centered on human alone, treating the enivronment like it was non-existent. this approach to policy making has to abandoned because in other to make subtantiatyive impact on the environment there has a to be a change of policy to a certain degree.
Besieds since environmental issues are transnational in their characteristics, each country having a ministry if climate change can help secure a whollistic approach towards the enivronment. for exampler in Africa, agricultural ministers over west africa meet this year ro discuss issues affect the agricultural sector, imaging the same thing happening with the climate change ministry either reigonally or international, this can help secure a better approach towards environmental challenges. also for developing countries the ministry of climate change can help analys the conmsequences of certain technologies and paths towards industrialization over another. putting the entire wieght of dealing with the environment or climate change on the government, knowing fully well how bureaucratic it can be is an excuse to do quite little if not nothing, if every important sector of every nation has a ministry or parastatal of it own - there's an MDG parastatal in nigeria, then climate change shouldn't be denied. if not for anything to but reduce cardon emission and the death of commons
Enough form over matter
While I agree that having someone to be held responsible for a nation's addressing of climate change is useful, I am not sure having a Ministry of Climate Change is the solution. There should be a clear authority taking care of everything related to climate change policies, but it does not have to be a separate ministry. To illustrate, Denmark has a Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment. Swedish 'climate advocates' recently launched a proposal to make establish a Ministry of Finance and Climate Change. At the same time, Kenya has 42 ministries in total, many of them ineffective.
What is more important, I argue, is to make sure that each authority responsible for climate change in individual countries can benchmark its efforts against global standards and focus on what is particularly urgent locally through customized goals. Matter over form, please!
for the record being some over and some less pollute,some are benefiting while others are suffering.it can only be wise only if the heavy polluters who are benefiting decide to it first.than less polluters who are suffering
ALL COUNTRIES SHOULD HAVE A CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTRY ? Capital NO
What a great mistakes, Having a Climate Change Ministry is like putting a round pegs in a square holes. creating another ministry for climate change s like having a ministry of HIV and AIDS or Ministry of MDGs with its own minister. As for me this will not work, we have ministry of the Environment for Heavens Sake and i think they should handle the issue of climate change and its aftermath, all we need to do is to create a department under the ministry for those who don't have a directorate already and headed by a director who reports back to the Minister.
Climate Change is a serious issue and as such needs to be funded to these i feel why creating an office for climate change the budget of the ministry should be increase and the ministry should be strengthen, and allow to work with all necessary equipment and materials, take for example in Lagos-Nigeria, the Commissioner of Environment is doing enough and to make his work more ease and direct, He create a department of Climate Change with a Director. I can tell you that every thing is going on smoothly in the state and every body is seeing the work of the ministry in all ramification.
This assumes that a ministry of the environment actually has the same priorities as a ministry for climate change would, and also assumes that the ministry for climate change would not simply supersede a ministry for the environment. A ministry for the environment is likely to have a narrow remit, that is entirely domestic and is focused on areas like national parks rather than having an international agenda that is needed. This really needs to happen because environment ministries are generally minor departments, which often have other parts attached such as food, agriculture, rural affairs etc.
Having a ministry of climate change will have many problems when it comes to deciding on policies for the country. Climate change is a problem that transcends all human made boudaries and lays hand on all aspects of society. When addressing climate change, a country has to do so from many angles - the economic sector, the power sector, the environmental section, etc. etc. In most countries, ministries already exist for these sectors, and while making decisions on climate change, it would be very confusing to decide which ministry makes which decision.
For example, when deciding on renewable energy - a policy to reduce carbon emmissions, the question arises who will oversee this - the energy/electricity ministry, or the climate change ministry. When allocating funds for climate change prevention and mitigation, the question arises - who will oversee this - the economic ministry or the climate change ministry.
Climate change is a central problem that has to be addressed from all sides. THere are already relevant ministries on all sides that can take this action. A climate change ministry would simply make the other ministries inefficient in taking action, while not being able to be efficient itself.
While a ministry like this may look like a harbinger for change, it would only lead to inter-governmental confusion and cause the ministers and ministries to trip over each other's works and in the end make climate action even more difficult than it already is.
The economic ministry would not have anything to do with allocating funds for climate change if there was a climate change ministry, at least no more than they alloacte the funds for Defence, Transport, Health etc. Obviously the economic ministry could squeeze the funding for climate change but this is no different whether there is a climate change ministry or not. The economic ministry could probably more easily squeeze funding if there was not a climate change minister fighting the corner for funding for adressing climate change.
There already being 'relevent' ministries may well be the case but the problem is precicely that, ministries plural. If there are several departments working to a greater or lesser extent on climate change then there is going to be more crosscutting initiatives, more competition for resources and no one figure in charge. In other words the confusion happens when there is more than one department and is cleared up when there is one climate change boss controling everything.
Lack or resources
Climate change is a problem that has to be addressed by the brightest minds of today. Making a climate change ministry would demand such people from all sectors. However, such people are already taken up by the other ministries.
For example, the finance minister who great in designing financial policies and can make great green economic plans cannot leace the finance ministry and go to the climate change ministry - the country's economy would suffer. Same is the case with other such industries. As already mentioned, climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed from all sectors and by the brightest people from all of these sectors. It can't be assigned to any one of them. So, the ministers themselves, while taking care of other non-climate related issues in their own relevant ministries, have to make policies regarding climate change so that a country can make the best use of the people it has.
There is a better alternative
While creating a whole ministry would create complications and problems, a country can however create a national climate change coordination center or something of that nature. This is so that a particular office can coordinate the different policies of the different ministries so that there is no overlapping and so that the total of the climate aciton policies of a country can be effectively passed on to other countries as an encouragement of climate action through the foreign ministry.This does not interfere with the work of other ministries, but effectively shows that the country is very serious regarding climate action.
What do you think?