Agreeing mutually acceptable emissions targets will be more effective in tackling climate change than targets for every country
Countries like to talk about being green and trumpet their climate change policies to show how progressive they are. However this does not mean they actually do anything. Legally binding targets are one way to make sure that countries act on policies to prevent climate change, but are they the best way? Legally binding targets will be difficult to agree as countries don’t want to sacrifice potential economic growth or competitive advantage they might gain by not reducing emissions. Agreements would need to be based upon what some countries might consider, or what might turn out to be, unattainable targets. These countries may then ignore the treaty; in which case, how would supposedly binding targets be enforced? Would it be better to go for less “tough” targets in order to get more agreement and action?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Legally binding targets are impractical
I feel that legally binding targets would not do much towards helping nations achieve targets, because like with the kyoto protocol , a lot of nations would simply refuse to accept them.
Every nation is serious about climate change and global warming, but a lot of nations worldwide are faced with more serious problems like, poverty, malnourishment and illiteracy. A country which is developing has full right to exploit the available natural resources for its advantage to help its citizens achieve a decent standard of living.
Legally binding standards would heavily favour nations that have overshot their emission potential by several times and can only reduce it from now on. As compared to nations that emit very less and are trying to find their feet in terms of development.
Hence i feel that mutually acceptable standards, which are sensitive towards the various forces that the nation needs to address would be a better way to involve more nations into the fight against climate change.
Mutually accepatable emission targets are simple accords with no real value. A nation may or may not achieve them. In contrast, a legally binding contract makes the countries accountable towards the effort of achieving its emission targets.
Global climate change is amongst the most serious problems faced by humanity and cannot be put on the back burner for any reason. While every society strives to achieve better living standards, if global warming goes unchecked it would result in destruction of life and property on a far greater scale than that imaginable. Its like the old saying "A stitch in time saves nine.", if the nations of the world do not hold themselves accountable to the issues of global warming, the global climate would rise the effects of which include climate changes, extinction of many species, rise of sea level and we may lose many island nations with their entire populations.
Legally binding contracts are based on the essential need to cut emissions. It does not mean that they must favour any particular nation. For example, the targets can be kept on the basis of the existing population of the world with each person allocated his share of environment. Thereby, as most developing nations are over-populous, they would benefit to some amount as their citizens would get more cleaner air putting a degree of the emission targets to the developed nations. It is also possible to keep the industrialised nations to take into account the total amount of pollution spread by their factories since the birth of industrial revolution and achieve targets which are set as per the overall pollution created by them till date.
These targets are thus only achievable if the nations of the world come together and set targets for eachother based on set code of rules and then hold themselves accountable to their share of emission cuts.
It is thus that we understand that legally binding agreements are essential necessities to ensure that the emission cuts are achieved and global warming is kept in check
O course, binding contrasts are the only answer. We know what happens to all the "declarations" signed. If a country does it only to be among the countries with good intentions, it's just useless.
Effective measures must be written in a "treaty" and deadlines must be clearly stated.
Millennium Goals are also declarations of good intentions, but what happens to poverty and human rights in a world which centers everything on money, profit.
If scientists are right, we MUST STOP behaving the way we did for 40 years RIGHT NOW.
As an ordinary citizen, I feel that we are not given the chance to make a U turn, particularly concening private transport. How ridiculous it is today to show off with big, powerful cars, to fill in a swimming pool, to waste electricity and clean water. Have we evolved or turned more selfish?
Let's hope this summit will BE DIFFERENT!
International Agreements should not be a police instrument
The important thing about international environmental agreements is to bring all countries on the table and discuss serious issues that have not borders.
If it is a tough and hard legally binding text not many countries even if they have signed will not ratify afterwards. Text should be progressive and open. To encourage protocols and other actions and ethical principles later on. It is the process after the declarations and agreement that matters. Protocols afterwards will put the realistc targets and mechaniss to combat the climate change.
Adaptation is the key. Each country need to take different measures according to their economical, geographical, social and political capacity.
Citizens Participation in every level of implementation is also crucial for its success.
My suggestion and thinking for a brighter future.
I think that we can takle the climate change with recycling, i think recyclying has many benefits for society and envy. For greenaries good.
Also planting trees, giving us people a better air to breath and enjoy our life.This is my thesis. I am a 24 years old man civil engineer and i wish the best to the coucil. Re-wood and build in green is the new current of civil engineering. Harmony of buildings and envyroment can be materialised through clever urban design, and clever property design as well. I want to be the friendly beat with you and you to take these thinks into action, because the world can be better.
Creating a balanced and specific contribution between developing and developed nations is the best method
Most of the time, developed nations are the one to be blamed for the horrible danger of the Climate change. But, if we see the deep rooted cause of the global warming, it's the combination of the Green house gas emission and massive deforestation as a main cause!! for releasing toxic green house gas emission in a huge amount , developed nations are responsible bodies and for the massive deforestation of our forests without any concern, developing nations are responsible bodies. so, from this fact we can clearly suggest that if there is a joint work between developed and developing nations & if there is a specific selection of solutions to decrease the alarming rate of climate change to a minimum rate; our globe would be better world. But, it's not too late for doing this! slowly but surly we can reverse the fact that humiliate us in these days!!!
Biruk Elias from Ethiopia
Legally binding targets are the best way to tackle climate change
Globally, each country's stand reflects the fact that they are more concerned about getting others to do the job of cleaning up the planet while themselves staying laid back. In this scenario its highly imperative that a global legally binding treaty be in place, keeping in mind the per capita emissions of each country. Also to be noted is whether the carbon footprint is calculated in terms of manufacturing products or consumerism.
A legally binding target should also keep in mind the economic development of the country in question as the resultant treaty should not affect severely the progress of the nation. However, the treaty must also not be so lenient as to be harsh on the future of the planet. Only and only when the parties involved are accountable to a global Climate Change authority will there be any progress towards reductions of Greenhouse gases in the long run.
Is any nation really likely to be willing to sign up to something that will make it "accountable to a global Climate Change authority"? Nations dislike anything that intrudes on their sovereignty, especially when it is a body that would in effect have to have powers to intervene in domestic politics in order to hold countries to account over their emissions.
Any creation of a climate change authority would also seem to take the view that adding more bureaucracy is better. It is not. It is best to have one layer of bureaucracy - that created by the state rather than having an international body overseeing this. This body would most likely simply create criticism nations actions or lack of them rather than solve anything.
I think we could look at this with more positivity,we must understand that there only a few people who are representing the nation as a whole.It might sound stupid to just sign up an agreement,however it happens to be one of the smartest solutions not only to get one nation together but many.This times,perhaps more realistic, practically and conditioned.
Now who would object that?I think its reasonable.
Is it not more positive simply to trust countries to fulfill as much cutting of emissions as they can through emissions targets that are suitable for them? A mutually acceptable agreement would be much more likely to get more participants not less and would be much less likely to end in failure, precicely because everyone feels that they can go as far as they want. This means that the countries that want to have very deep cuts in CO2 emissions and kick start their green economy can while those who feel less able have more time.
Such a mutually acceptable agreement would be likely to slowly get tougher rather than weaker. When some nations show that it is possible to create a low carbon economy the others will follow, both because the economic costs are better known and because they cant afford to be left behind.
Legislation is the need of the hour
In order to bring about steps against climate change, we need to have legal binding targets for every country. Frankly speaking, the time to make amends through mutual agreements on milder targets has not led us anywhere so far. Unless, we do not have a legislation that imposes a necessary target limitation, we cannot achieve the desired results.
Legalization on a universal level is not something that is as easy as it seems to achieve. The framework can at best impose financial penalties and or incentivize good practices. Most nations are going to say big deal and totally ignore the targets. The need of the hour is a mutual agreement to work together towards climate change and encourage every nation to take remedial measures with global assistance. Its like the big stick policy , nations would adhere to it but slowly but surely they would also resent it and opt out of the framework eventually.
We have the carrot, we need a stick
We can sniff a problem, though we cannot see it: The five years to 2007 have seen a surge in awareness among people of the developed world regarding climate change. Almost everyone believed it is happening and most of these understood it is man-made. Few can grasp though that apart from more frequent extreme weather all changes will take place so slowly people will consider them normal -the 'new' normal. In 2009, partly due to the difficult economic situation worldwide, less people find fighting climate change a priority. They listened to the 'alarmists'; believed them; nothing happened over night; so why bother. The discourse is now addressing better the time lag in feedback from the climate system. We have been warned, but there are few incentives to do something about it now. We can sniff the carrot of a stable climate, but we cannot see 'the point of struggling too much, when we already have so many pressing problems'.
We need a stick, and we need it now: Not that tomorrow it will be too late, but it will take a long time before people mutually agree about doing something significant to slow down the process of global warming. Legally binding emissions targets -with flexibility over how to achieve them- and enforceable through e.g. trade restrictions are what US, China and other big emitters need in order to take the climate change problem seriously. I find the idea of a carbon tariff over imports very lucrative in this respect, as a penalty for not complying with targets. Otherwise they would all play sit-and-wait until water rises to their ears, and only some know how to swim.
International powerful legislations are necessary in order to draw red borders
As we might know, although many G-8 countries try to overcome climate change effects, there has been no checking and controlling in many areas.
For instance, considering China with a powerful industrial development, is it totally true that they spend extra funds in order to pursue climate related precautions?
This aspect precisely common in many countries even they approve climate change regualtions in their law and practical life. However, as i mentioned slightly, there has to be strong laws especially in international context in order to achieve control before its late.
NO NO NO NO NO NO!
In a strict sense, agreeing a standard is very A ok. But i don't buy into it at all. My reason for this view is coming from the fact that Nations of these world are not sincere, from experiences, some Nations cannot be trusted to stick with an acceptable deal. For Instance, the idea of nuclear non proliferation and the reduction in arms around the world.
Despite several global efforts at curbing these menaces, some erratic Nations like USA, China, Iran, etc are still stock piling weapons and building many more. Iran for instance, still deceives the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purpose, but the world knows better.
My point, agreeing an emission standard for all states is cool, but I cannot trust Nations like China, Iran, and to some extend USA, to abide by any set standard.
We need a beginning point for the prevent that nature carnage. We need put a concrete target with resulotions and sanctions, without it; no one take responsibility of the world except a few sensitive countries. Finally, preventing or retarding of global warming is more important than economical development of countries.
hw to define 'mutually acceptable'
the sole reason why we are still debating about climate change and emission cuts and who should do what is because there is lack of "mutual acceptance"...if there would have been so much clarity on that front, then the real work which needs to be done would have already been underway, which is not the case.
whatever is fine for one is not fine for the other..this whole debate is now developing vs developed..and within that also who is how much developed..so as has been the case since ages, i feel legislations are the only way out..as the arguements above mention
illegal tackling is more reasonable
we all should be sure that the nations are not the real representatives of people..
most of the countries have profit-oriented approaches because of neoliberalism..
i think that the accurate tackling should be without considering legislation, because laws dont work for the planet.. the laws work for bourgeoisie
if we say that "we want MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE EMISSIONS" we imply that "we have not the ability of STOPPING EMISSIONS, and we are trying to be in accord with the people polluting the planet"
What do you think?