For the past few decades, there has been an increase in natural calamities that have been as a result of human activities. An increase in the overall atmospheric temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, mass extinction of entire species, flash floods and fluctuating weather patterns have become a common occurrence. Scientists raised alarm over this issue and slowly global warming has become a stark reality and imminent threat to the survival of humanity in years to come (Oreskes, 2004). With this in mind, there have been several global meetings aimed at charting the way forward and coming up with solutions to this problem. The most notable meeting was held in Copenhagen, Doha, and Kyoto and recently in Paris. Many of these agreements have been a mixed bowl of fortunes, with some degree of success but often plagued by failures (Grub, 2004). The most comprehensive agreement ever reached was the Kyoto protocol, and with its mandate nearing the end, there has been a call for a better replacement that will seek to fix the mishaps in the Kyoto Protocol. Several nations, however, feel even with the current system there is significant imbalance and major polluters such as the United States, and China is not fully owning up to their misdeeds. In this paper, I will seek to support claims that many of the global climate pacts have failed, and examine if the controversial Paris talks offer any remedy to this problem.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris in 2015 was the 21st annual gathering of parties signatory to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The aim of the conference according to organizers was to come up with a binding and universal agreement on climate change. The agreement was to be reached by consensus by the 192 states in attendance. The aim since the onset of the talks was to come up with mechanisms of reducing climate change and set the limit of global warming to an increase of 2 degrees centigrade.
Before the meeting, there had been several attempts to aid in reaching this goal. Pope Francis published an encyclical that called for swift action in combatting climate change and was aimed at influencing the outcome of the meeting. National climate panels from 146 countries had also publicly presented drafts of their intended national climate contributions. They were averagely estimated to propose a limit of 2.7 degrees centigrade by the year 2100. Some of them such as the European Union offered substantial increments to the tune of 40% reductions in emissions by 2030. International Trade Union Confederation also added its voice into the talks by has called for a zero carbon and zero poverty goal. The secretary general was quoted as saying that there would be no jobs on a dead planet.
Most of the experts and major think tanks, however, argued that the key to the talks succeeding was convincing China and the United States to sign and ratify the agreement (Rudd, 2015). These two were the biggest energy consumers and polluters by far, and their commitment was vital. The World Pension Council analysts even went on to make the bold claim that without the co-operation of the United States and China, even if all the G20 states signed on, the prospects of any meaningful gains were a pipe dream. There was an atmosphere of hope and relief when China and the US jointly announced they were willing to commit. President Obama in his speech alluded this stance to the fact that America led by example and to create a sustainable industry, there had to be more output while reducing emissions.
The conference being held in France also served as a yard stick to other countries. France has over time shifted to clean energy sources while maintaining high living standards which was proof that it is possible to move from fossil fuels into sustainable energy on a large scale. The primary goal of the convention as mentioned was to bring a reduction in greenhouse emissions and set a limit of 2 degrees. This was necessary as many experts felt that the measures stipulated under Kyoto Protocol were not enough to reach this goal.
The outcome of the meeting was that countries would meet these targets as soon as they could and maintain the 2-degree centigrade threshold. Some states such as Seychelles, however, raised objections. Seychelles and Philippines are among some of the territories directly threatened by rising levels which would see them lose sizeable chunks of their land to the sea. They strongly advocated for a target of 1.5 degrees centigrade instead, and further raised the issue that these objectives were just simply aims and not binding targets.
The agreement will not be in place until 55 countries that emit 55% of the total amount of greenhouse gas of all the countries that signed and ratified it. There is minimal optimism that the United States, which contributes more than 25% of the emissions will agree to sign. The signatory states are also mandated to set a target of emission reduction. The set goals, however, are entirely voluntary. There will be no mechanisms to ensure these set targets are met by a given date or that there will be enforcement measures in case they do not respond to their goals. This agreement also assumes that heavy polluters such as United States, China, Russia, Canada, India, etc. will voluntarily cut down on emissions from the factory to the national level without any binding means or regulatory measures such as an emission tax and economic penalties to encourage active commitment. This agreement was termed as being weak and triggered protests not only in Paris but other cities around the globe.
The first Conferences of Parties was held in Berlin, Germany and was known as the Berlin mandate. It mandated developed nations to have set greenhouse emission limits, and they were legally bound to them. On the other hand, developing countries were exempted from the compulsory binding obligations. The Berlin Mandate paved the way for the Kyoto Protocol.
During CoP 4 in 1997 that was held in Kyoto, Japan, the member countries came together and formulated the Kyoto Protocol. It was a suite of international treaties that bind nations to cut on greenhouse emissions. It was seen as a successor to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. All members but the USA, South Sudan and Afghanistan signed and taken up the treaty into their national laws. The central principle of the agreement is shared responsibilities of countries based on their emissions.
For the agreement to be unanimously endorsed, there had been a long process spanning 13 years. The Kyoto Protocol succeeded the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate and the Berlin Mandate. These two did not present ways to manage emissions and targets for cutting down on them and therefore the need for a more comprehensive pact. The Kyoto Protocol therefore put in place set greenhouse emissions targets for each member, a procedural system for emissions trading and provisions for future amendments like penalties for not meeting targets. The agreement also had a set procedure for effecting the treaty, requiring at least 55 nations to ratify it. It came into effect in 2005.
In 1998, the countries met again in Buenos Aires, Brazil. The intention was to finish with the unresolved issues from Kyoto. These problems were diverse and ranged from mechanisms of enforcement to even establishing rules of gas emission trading. They therefore came up with the Buenos Aires Plan of Action to handle them. Two subsequent meetings, the Bonn Agreement, and the Marrakech Accords were held to sort the prevalent problems. These meetings put a spotlight on Annex one countries which comprised of developed nations such as the European Union, the United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia and Russia among others.
The summits aimed at providing means for these states to meet their emission cuts targets. The first option was International Emissions Trading where participating countries had fixed targets which represented the legally allowed amounts of emissions and were recorded as units. With emissions trading, countries that have extra emission could sell them to countries that had exceeded their limit.
The second option is clean development mechanism. This allows developed nations to start projects in developing countries that are aimed at cutting down on emissions (Silveira, 2005). This way they earn tradable emission reduction credits that count towards their Kyoto targets. This scheme provides developing countries a chance to get more investments while the developed nations get to achieve their emission targets.
The third option is joint implementation where a developed country partners with a developing nation to start clean energy projects. The developed countries earn non-tradable credits that count towards their targets. This mechanism as well offers more flexibility options to developed countries and opens up developing nation to more investment opportunities.
With the USA and China having the largest economies among attending countries, they had a major impact on the talks. They aimed at getting a solution without making their industries vulnerable (Metz, 2007). The United States under Bill Clinton was a proponent and an active participant in the process, having signed it was on the track to ratifying it. However, when George Bush was elected, there was a dramatic shift in foreign policy and a change in their stand. The US was no longer interested in ratifying the Protocol.
The US understood the need to reduce emissions and acknowledged global warming as a real threat, but was skeptical about the exemption accorded to China under the Kyoto Protocol. China was the second-largest emitter of polluter of the atmosphere after the USA (Duncan, 2011), but had been categorized as a developing nation and was therefore exempted from the emission reduction targets. The United States was therefore adamant about ratifying the agreement due to the imminent backlash and the public outcry back home. Industries would suffer a massive blow, having to adapt or be faced out so as to comply with the guidelines. This would necessitate new waste management schemes in factories and many factories would not be able to comply and therefore have to be shut down. This situation would pose a grave risk to the US economy.
With the United States’ refusal to sign and China's exemption from punitive measures, developing nations were the ones who suffered. Their industries struggled to keep up, and even the donations that streamed in were insufficient. Some of them even have their existence threatened by global warming, and therefore rightly believed that no one stood for their well-being.
One of the developing hardest hit by global warming is the Philippines. The Philippines is a group of 7641 islands and is located in Southeast Asia. The capital city of the Philippines is Manila. Its territory covers roughly 300,000 square kilometers (115,831 square miles). Its population is about 100 million and continues to be the fastest growing in Southeast Asia. While its location at a region of high seismic activity and that it is near the Equator makes the Philippines vulnerable to earthquakes and tropical storms, it has a rich diversity of flora and Fauna. Its official languages are English and Filipino, with 19 other recognized languages.
The Philippines is a democratic state ruled by a president. It is governed as a unitary state except the Muslim Mindanao region which is semi-autonomous. The President serves as the head of state and government and is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The President just like other members of Parliament is chosen by majority vote to run for a six-year term and is tasked with appointing and leading the cabinet, who run the daily affairs of the state. The Congress is divided into Senate, which is the upper house and the House of Representatives as the lower house. Senators serve for a six-year term and House of Representatives members serve for a period of three years.
The Philippine economy has an estimated GDP of $289.686 billion (UN, 2015). The country’s main exports include copper, petroleum, coconut oil, semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, textiles, and fruits. Its biggest trade associates include China. Japan, the United States, Singapore, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan with the currency being the peso. Its economy has largely been agriculture-based but is transitioning towards services and manufacturing. The country has relatively low unemployment and inflation rates. A lot of money comes from overseas Filipinos, which surpasses foreign direct investment. Despite the relatively good economy, however, the country is plagued by corruption and embezzlement.
The Philippines is ranked by the Global Climate Risk Index 2015 as the country most affected by climate change. This can be partly attributed to its location as it’s situated in the western Pacific Ocean, surrounded by warm waters that are getting warmer as average sea-surface temperatures continue to rise. Most of its almost 7700 islands also lack adequate barriers from these storms. Coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems are the only defenses. Coral reefs die out due to increasing in sea temperature while Mangroves have disappeared due to deforestation.
With these in mind, therefore, we see that climate change not only affects natural resources but also strains the economy. It is estimated that Typhoon Haiyan caused damages equal to 2% of the country's GDP (Human Rights Online, 2015). While wealthy nations can afford to put up barriers and disaster management, many of the developing countries are only left at the mercy of nature. Developing countries rightfully feel that developed countries are shortchanging them; they release copious greenhouse emissions and pay moderate fines and penalties compared to their economic status, and in return it is the small nations who suffer.
Climate change above all else is a humanitarian need. In many developed countries, agriculture is the backbone of the economy (Bruce & Haites, 1996). Fluctuating weather patterns due to global warming lead to miscalculated farming and therefore famine. Many of these developing nations are arid or semi-arid and rely majorly on rainfall for agriculture. Food security will, therefore, be primarily affected unless urgent measures are put into place. Decreased yields and lack of opportunities in the agricultural sector is a catalyst for rural- migration, resulting in population pressure in urban areas and over time slums and informal settlements crop up. Insufficient food supply could further lead to malnutrition, increased poverty levels, and the risk of heightened social unrest and conflict. Additionally in areas where there is heavy rainfall, flooding events may occur and if it happens, poses a grave danger to human settlements and infrastructure. Mudslides, landslides, and instances of flash floods are all too common. Flooding also takes a toll on infrastructures, such as roads and bridges, hospitals, schools and emergency rescue centers. Flooding also provides healthy ground for waterborne diseases and pests.
There is urgent need, therefore, to come up with a comprehensive pact that not only puts in place targets for reducing emissions but making sure these objectives are followed to the letter. While the alternative means provided by the Kyoto such as energy trading have made developed countries put up development projects in return for meeting their targets, I view this as cheating, and it does not aid in reducing the effect of global warming. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if we have actually exhausted all options to create a sustainable future. In a mostly capitalist world driven by profits and cutting costs, have we invested enough in clean energy sources that are more cost effective? I believe that tackling these challenges will not only mean more efficient industry but a happy and hopeful planet on its way to ideal sustainability.
REFERENCES
Stein, J. V. (2008). The International Law and Politics of Climate Change: Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(2), 243-268.
The world is changing, are you? (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/
Clark, Duncan (21 April 2011). "Which nations are most responsible for climate change?” London: Guardian.
Oreskes, N. (2004). BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686.
Bruce, J. P., Yi, H., & Haites, E. F. (1996). Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge: Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Rudd, Kevin (25 May 2015). "Paris Can't Be Another Copenhagen". New York Times.
Metz, B. (2007). Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
French, D. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Journal of Environmental Law, 10(1), 215-224.
Eric Pooley (2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Planet, Hyperion, New York.
Grubb, M. (2004). "Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?” International Review for Environmental Strategies.
Silveira, S. (2005). The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Bioenergy - Realizing the Potential, 169-178
Islands nations vulnerable to climate change. (n.d.). Human Rights Documents Online. Doi: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-0564-2014007
