The effects of climate change are already evident in virtually every part of the world. For instance, the continued rise in mean temperatures is a common phenomenon the world over. As such, every nation is aware of the challenges of the current unprecedented climate change and this has led to increase in debates on climate change adaptations at international political agendas. However, the adoption and implementation of international policies regarding the reduction of green house gas emissions is problematic because nations are more concerned about their economic interests. A major argument against the implementation of environmental policies relates to different economic interests among nations given the differences in the availability of financial resources and different levels of poverty. The diverse economic interests among nations played a major role in the failure to adopt a universal legally binding policy on climate change during the 2009 Copenhagen conference (Falkner 252).
Many countries fail to adopt climate change policies because they believe that implementation of such policies would be detrimental to their national economies. The opponents of climate change policies on reduction of emissions often present counter arguments to the effect that adoption of emission reduction policies would lead to inability for countries and entities to create new jobs therefore cause adverse economic impacts. Russia and most of the developing nations are the major proponents of the foregoing argument and their focus is on development rather than controlling emissions (Victor 91). Accordingly, some nations such as China are not keen on reducing their green house gas emissions unless other high emitting countries such as the United States do so. Such attitude is based on the notion that unilateral decisions would place the nations that reduce their emissions at a disadvantaged economic position (Falkner 255). These arguments presuppose that governments and corporations should only adopt policies that seek to realize their economic interests. The cost-based arguments against emission reduction policies confirm the misleading ethical notion that public policies have to be founded on economic self-interests as opposed to responsibility of governments towards the entire population that is likely to be harmed by failure to act.
The solution to the economic arguments against the adoption of climate change policies should start by making governments and emitting entities understand that they have an ethical obligation to protect the public from harm. Such realization would help in eliminating the selfish economic arguments against universal climate change policies because governments will start having serious considerations about their universal obligations. Although, it is true that some policies about the reduction of green house gas emissions would reduce the ability to create new jobs, it is equally important for governments and heavy green house gas emitters to acknowledge that they have an even bigger responsibility of protecting everyone from the dire consequences of climate change.
Work Cited
Falkner Robert, Hannes Stephan, and John Vogler. International Climate Policy after
Copenhagen: Towards a ‘Building Blocks’ Approach. Global Policy 1(3), 2010, 252-62.
Victor, David. Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change: Numbers,
Interests and Institutions. Global Environmental Politics 6(3), 2006.
